/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180529.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 29, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 107
Headlines
AARGON COLLECTION: Faces "Buchanan" Suit in N.D. California
ABC FINANCIAL: Faces "McKean" Suit in S.D. California
ADVANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Norwood" Suit in S.D. Mississippi
AKAL SECURITY: "Dean" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
ALTON LANE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
ARCHWAY ON PEARL: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Palm Island Riot Settlement Slap in the Face to Police
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Iron Workers Fund Suit in S.D. Ca.
CANCER GENETIC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CLYDESDALE BANK: Class Action Law to Aid Loan Sale Claimants
COLORADO: Suit v. Sheriff Department Granted Class Action Status
COMMERCEHUB: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Acquisition
CORECIVIC INC: Sued in Georgia Over Illegal Labor Practices
DEUTSCHE BANK: Royal Park Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Proctor's Injunction and Cert. Bids Denied
EDISON INT'L: Fort Lauderdale GERS Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
ELETROBRAS: Settles U.S. Class Action for $14.75 Million
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Kang" Suit in C.D. California
EXPERT GROUP: Says Berkley Must Indemnify Defense of Class Suit
FLIK INTERNATIONAL: Clarke Wants to Send Notice to FLSA Class
FLINT, MI: Plaintiffs Lawyers in Tainted Water Cases in Dispute
FLORIDA POWER: Must Face Class Action Over Irma Power Outages
GEC RESTAURANT: Keyes Seeks Cert. of Green Eggs Servers Class
GENERAL INFORMATION: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Black" Suit
GOOGLE INC: Court Grants Certiorari in Cy Pres Settlement Case
HALLIBURTON CO: Challenges Retirement Class Action in 2d Cir.
HALYARD HEALTH: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bahamas Suit
HANFORD: Workers File Class Action Over Pension Benefits
HARMONY GOLD: Silicosis Class Action Nears Conclusion
INZIRILLOS COMPANY: Faces "Rocha" Suit in S.D. Florida
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Court Stays Proceedings in "O'Boyle" Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Counsel and Plaintiff Pending
KEL LAW FIRM: Faces Class Action Over Bankruptcy Legal Fees
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Drop Consolidated Suit Pending
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Waters" Suit
KONA GRILL: January 2019 Trial Set for "Boots" Class Action
LAMP PLUS: High Court Has Yet to Rule on Class Arbitration Issue
LIBERTY POWER: Faces "Perrong" Suit in D. Delaware
LOS ANGELES, CA: Appeals Ruling in Youth Justice Suit to 9th Cir.
LOWE'S: Employees File Class Action Over 401K Investment Funds
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: June 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MAGIC WAY: Sued in New York Over Failure to Proper Pay Employees
MDC PARTNERS: Appeal in "Paniccia" Class Lawsuit Underway
MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit Still Pending
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Amended Complaint Filed in "Forman" Lawsuit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends "Owens" Class Suit in N.D. Ga.
SUN LIFE: Class Suits over Sales Practices Still Pending
MATT & MEERA: Faces "Yonten" Suit in New Jersey
MDL 2741: "Abedeljalil" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2741: "Andriola" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MDL 2741: "Bolyard" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MDL 2741: "Robbins" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2827: "Cook" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MDL 2827: "Abdulla" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over "Fake Recalls"
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends "Voshall" Class Suit in Calif.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal from Nixed "Martin" Suit Still Pending
METROPOLITAN LIFE: 7th Cir. Says Claim Survived Dismissal Bid
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Refiled Smoker Rates Complaint in N.Y.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suit by LTD Claims Specialists
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends Suits on Sales Practices Claims
MUNICIPALITY OF PEARL: Faces "McCright" Suit in S.D. Mississippi
MURPHY OIL: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Arbitration Issue
MYLAN NV: $89.2 Mil. Paid in Modafinil Antitrust Lawsuit
MYLAN NV: Court Narrows Claims in Federal Securities Litigation
MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Lawsuit Dismissed, Another Stayed
MYLAN NV: July 2020 Trial Scheduled for EpiPen(R) Civil Lawsuit
MYLAN NV: Still Defends Antitrust Lawsuits over Various Products
NANTHEALTH INC: Aug. 2019 Trial Date Set for "Deora" Class Suit
NANTHEALTH INC: Retirement Fund Lawsuit in Calif. Still Stayed
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Jordan" Class Action Underway
NEW YORK TIMES: Freelancers Set to Get Settlement Payout
NUSTAR GP: Faces "Bessette" Suit Over Proposed Merger Plan
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Underway
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Court Stays "Nallagonda" Class Lawsuit
PAPA MURPHY'S: Settlement Reached in "Lennartson" Class Suit
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Effexor XR Antitrust Lawsuits
PFIZER INC: Antitrust Lawsuits over Lipitor Ongoing
PFIZER INC: Ct. Okays $94MM Pact with Celebrex Direct Purchasers
PFIZER INC: Still Defends Suit on Intravenous Solutions
PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Still Pending
PFIZER INC: Antitrust Class Actions over EpiPen Still Ongoing
POPULAR INC: Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Lawsuit Ongoing
POPULAR INC: BPPR to Appeal Reinstatement of "Torres" Case
POPULAR INC: "Camacho" Plaintiffs Seek Review of Case Dismissal
POPULAR INC: BPPR's Bid to Drop "Saad Maura" Suit Still Pending
POPULAR INC: Aug. 2018 Fairness Hearing Set for "Valle" Accord
POPULAR INC: Settlement of "Duncan" Class Action Underway
PRA GROUP: 4th Cir. Appeal in "Pounds" Suit Still Pending
PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Gregory Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Cir.
QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Defends Class Lawsuit over FLSA Violations
QUORUM HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Rao" Class Lawsuit
REDFIN CORP: Sales Associates' Claims Settlement Gets Court Okay
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: No Hearing Date Yet in Calif. Suit
REVLON CONSUMER: Bid to Dismiss Merger Lawsuit Underway
RINGCENTRAL INC: Appeal from Dismissed "SPS" Class Suit Pending
RINGCENTRAL INC: Bid to Drop "Hurley" Class Suit Still Pending
SHUTTERFLY INC: Class Action on Lifetouch ERISA Breaches Underway
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Under Appeal
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Class Suits in Calif. Still Pending
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: "Lowinger" Class Complaint Underway
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Court OK on "Williams" Settlement
SOUTH DAKOTA, USA: Stanko Appeals D.S.D. Judgment to 8th Circuit
SOUTHCROSS ENERGY: 3 Merger-Related Suits Dismissed, 2 Pending
SPARK ENERGY: "Jurich" Suit v. Verde Companies Still Ongoing
SPARK ENERGY: "Richardson" Class Suit v. Verde Companies Ongoing
SUNOCO INC: Faces "White" Suit in D. South Dakota
TESLA INC: Settles Enhanced Autopilot Car Owners' Class Action
TETRA TECH: Faces $27BB Class Action Over Radiation Cleanup
TIMOTHY FOLSTED: Class Certification Sought in "Benedict" Suit
TPUSA INC: "Cazeau" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min., OT Wages
TRIDENT ASSET: Court Stays Further Proceeding in "Olszewski" Suit
TROY CONSTRUCTION: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stone" Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Recent Ruling May Lead to Use of ABC Test
UNION PACIFIC: Faces Negligence Class Action Over 2016 Flood
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Cotromano's Bid to Certify Class Denied
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM: Site Created for Students to Join Suit
WAWA INC: Wins Prelim. Nod of $25-Mil. Settlement in "Pfeifer"
WAYNE, IN: Among Defendants in Lawsuit Over Case Service Fees
WEINSTEIN CO: Class Action Plaintiffs Support Kagan Bid
WILLBROS GROUP: Aug. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WINN-DIXIE: Former Employee Objects to Ch.11 Amid Class Action
*********
AARGON COLLECTION: Faces "Buchanan" Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aargon Collection
Agency. The case is styled as Keseana Buchanan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aargon
Collection Agency, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02802 (N.D. Cal.,
May 11, 2018).
Aargon Collection Agency is a nationally licensed debt collection
agency headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada with four offices in
Hawaii, Colorado, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
ABC FINANCIAL: Faces "McKean" Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Financial
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jacob McKean, individually,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. ABC Financial Services, Inc., a Arkansas corporation and The
Arena Martial Arts, a business entity form unknown, Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00923-WQH-RBB (S.D. Cal., May 11, 2018).
ABC Financial Services, Inc. provides health club software and
billing services to the fitness industry primarily in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel R Shinoff, Esq.
Artiano Shinoff
2488 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92106
Tel: (619) 232-3122
Fax: (619) 232-3264
Email: dshinoff@as7law.com
ADVANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Norwood" Suit in S.D. Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Recovery
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Patrice Norwood, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Advanced Recovery Systems, Inc., Simpson Law Firm, P.A. and John
Does l-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00302-HTW-LRA (S.D.
Miss., May 11, 2018).
ARS is a full service collection agency that has been in
operation since 1991.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
SHEEHAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
429 Porter Avenue
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
Tel: (228) 875-0572
Email: mike@sheehanlawfirm.com
AKAL SECURITY: "Dean" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hayward Dean and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Akal Security Inc., Defendant,
Bracewell LLP, Movant, Case No. 1:18-mc-00060, was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on
May 11, 2018, and assigned Case No. 1:18-mc-00020.
Akal Security, Inc. is a security company which has federal
contracts to guard immigration detention centers, federal
courthouses, NASA facilities, federal buildings in Washington,
D.C., and numerous embassies under construction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Seth Sarelson, Esq.
Kaplan Young et al
600 Brickell Ave Ste 1715
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 330-6090
Fax: (305) 531-2405
Email: msarelson@kymplaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph Erwin Schuler, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
10701 Parkridge Boulevard, Suite 300
Reston, VA 20191
Tel: (703) 843-8300
Fax: (703) 843-8301
Email: schulerj@jacksonlewis.com
The Movant is represented by:
Shelby J. Kelley, Esq.
BRACEWELL LLP
2001 M Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 828-5859
Fax: (800) 404-3970
Email: shelby.kelley@bracewell.com
ALTON LANE: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alton Lane, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alton Lane,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04222 (S.D. N.Y., May 11,
2018).
Alton Lane is an American menswear company founded in 2009 by
Colin Hunter and Peyton Jenkins, graduates of the University of
Virginia. Alton Lane offers modern bespoke suits, blazers,
trousers, tuxedos, and shirts.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
ARCHWAY ON PEARL: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Archway on Pearl,
Inc. The case is styled as Samuel Bernardo Lopez Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Archway on Pearl, Inc., doing business as: Archway
Cafe, Archway On Water Corp., doing business as: Love & Dough,
John Doe Corp., doing business as: Ramen Bar, Arthur Hasani
also known as: Artur and QerimeMarke, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-02837 (E.D. N.Y., May 11, 2018).
Archway on Pearl, Inc. is a Cafe and restaurant in Dumbo,
Brooklyn, NY.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
AUSTRALIA: Palm Island Riot Settlement Slap in the Face to Police
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lily Nothling, Sally Rafferty and Laura Gartry, writing for ABC
News, report that the Queensland Police Union is labelled
"inflammatory" and unhelpful to race relations on Palm Island by
the Civil Liberties Council after it describes a record $30
million class action settlement for the racist police response to
riots as a "slap in the face".
It was revealed on May 1 the Queensland Government had agreed to
pay $30 million to settle a class action and offer a formal
apology in the Federal Court over the 2004 Palm Island riots.
Indigenous activist Lex Wotton, who was convicted of inciting the
riots following the death of Cameron Doomadgee, launched the
legal action in 2015.
Mr Doomadgee, 36, died of massive internal injuries after he was
arrested for being drunk and was then locked in a police cell,
with no visible injuries at the time.
The case came after the Federal Court found in November 2016 that
police were racist in their response to the riot and Mr Wotton
and his family were awarded $220,000 in damages for racial
discrimination a month later.
The money from the class action will compensate 447 claimants,
with $80,000 the largest single payment to a resident.
On May 2, Mr Wotton said Mr Leavers' comments were no help to
Palm Island residents.
"They [police] have done the wrong thing and it doesn't build any
police and community relations with those comments," Mr Wotton
said.
"That's not only here but probably statewide."
Yvette Nicholas, 19, was five years old when police raided her
home in the days following Mr Doomadgee's death in custody in
2004.
"The police barged in, the whole squad with the whole uniform and
everything," she said.
"My mum was there with the kids and everything -- they took my
uncle and my aunty.
"They were pointing guns at us -- at my cousins and brothers --
it was frightening and I was shaking."
'Slap in the face'
Queensland Police Union (QPU) president Ian Leavers said the
State Government's decision to settle was a "slap in the face" to
officers working in Indigenous communities and did not make sense
to him.
"They're awarding $30 million to some people who are convicted
criminals who will now get a cash windfall," Mr Leavers said.
"[Police] are not racist -- they're doing a job in very difficult
circumstances in areas where most Australians would not
comprehend what it's like to work and live in those environments.
"They are the ones who are owed an apology."
Queensland Civil Liberties Council vice-president Terry O'Gorman
said Mr Leavers' comments were an "extraordinary" attack on the
State Government, when they were simply obeying a court order.
"The fact is this is no 'act of grace' payment -- it's the State
Government doing what Mr Leavers should do and that is respect a
court judgement," he said.
Mr O'Gorman said the QPS and the Queensland Government could have
appealed the judgement but chose not to.
"Mr Leavers' comments on this are inflammatory and do nothing to
improve race relations on Palm Island," he said.
"The police union has learnt nothing from the damning findings of
the Federal Court and continues year in and year out to defend
indefensible actions of certain police officers."
Mr O'Gorman said it is "ludicrous" for Mr Leavers to say officers
on the ground need an apology.
"It just shows how reactionary, how out of touch and how
Neanderthal the police union have become," he said.
"Yet Mr Leavers and his union criticise court orders and in the
face of overwhelming evidence by a court judgement that the
police behaved badly on Palm Island.
Payouts could attract 'financial sharks'
Palm Island residents are being urged to watch out for "sharks"
who will try to exploit the new-found wealth in the wake of the
major legal settlement.
Cairns-based Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network (ICAN) chief
executive Aaron Davis said the money would put vulnerable people
at risk.
"Palm Island is an area of extreme disadvantage, so it's great
for the residents that this money's coming through," Mr Davis
said.
"Unfortunately whenever big pools of money get put anywhere in
Indigenous communities there is a lot of sharks around who could
take advantage of that."
Palm Island Mayor Alf Lacey said the settlement would allow
locals to start a new chapter.
"It's really important in terms of drawing a line in the sand and
moving forward . . . for the sake of the next generation is
what's important," he said.
Mr Lacey urged Palm Island residents to think carefully about how
they spend their money.
"What I'm saying to our community is to be wise about it and
certainly remember that this issue came about because someone
died in custody and we should never ever forget that.
"It's a matter for them and how they spend it is up to them."
Mr Davis said his organisation visited Palm Island weekly to
offer free financial counselling to Indigenous residents.
He said the island had a long history of financial exploitation.
"We've been having problems with rent-try-buy companies and
things like that, targeting people over there," he said.
"They've had education companies going over there signing people
up to things with offers of laptops and iPads and not really
providing a proper education.
"[Now] there might be more effort by second-hand car yards and
boat sellers . . . that could all of a sudden want to target the
place if they know there's significant amounts of money there."
Mr Davis said the settlement money could be life-changing to the
Palm Island community -- if the windfalls were properly managed.
"A lot of financial damage has already been done, so money could
go towards helping them set up and clear [their debts] and get
back to a stable place and start saving for something big," he
said.
"It's just about talking through those options and making sure
that it's used wisely." [GN]
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Iron Workers Fund Suit in S.D. Ca.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Banc of California,
Inc. The case is styled as Iron Workers Local No. 45 Pension
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Banc of California, Inc. and Steven A.
Sugarman, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00927-H-AGS (S.D. Cal.,
May 11, 2018).
Banc of California is a bank serving the state of California with
30+ banking branches in Southern California. The bank is
currently headquartered in Santa Ana, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erika Limpin Oliver, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 231-1058
Email: eoliver@rgrdlaw.com
CANCER GENETIC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 1
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CGIX) from March 23, 2017 through April 2, 2018, both dates
inclusive ("Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Cancer Genetics investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Cancer Genetics class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1315.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@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 throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cancer Genetics had ineffective disclosure controls and
internal controls over financial reporting; and (2) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 4, 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-1315.htmlto join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
[GN]
CLYDESDALE BANK: Class Action Law to Aid Loan Sale Claimants
------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Taylor, writing for The Herald, reports that for MBM
Commercial partner Cat MacLean the enactment of the Scottish
Government's Civil Litigation Bill, which passed its final hurdle
on May 1, cannot come quickly enough.
Having spent much of the last decade bringing legal claims
against Royal Bank of Scotland, Ms MacLean is now representing a
growing number of former Clydesdale Bank customers who are
looking to take action against an American company that bought
close to GBP1 billion of loans from the bank in 2015 and 2016.
Clydesdale Bank owner CYBG declined to comment, but it is
understood that the deals saw it sell a portfolio of distressed
debt to entities controlled by US firm Cerberus Capital
Management, all of which include the word Promontoria in their
name.
Promontoria has started calling in the debts, as it is entitled
to do. In a decision handed down in Greenock Sheriff Court last
August, Sheriff Derek Hamilton noted that as the "heritable
creditor" on a range of loans Clydesdale made to buy-to-let
business Portico Holdings, Promontoria had the authority to
repossess the related properties in order to recoup the debt when
Portico defaulted.
However, Ms MacLean, who in 2015 secured a UK Supreme Court
ruling that said verbal promises made to property developer Derek
Carlyle by RBS were binding, believes some of the former
Clydesdale customers have similar grounds for contesting
Promontoria's actions.
"Some clients really were distressed borrowers but quite a lot
are in default because their loan to value ratio has altered or
because their lending had been on an initial term of five years,"
Ms Maclean said. "The bank told customers they would renew the
loans after five years but then the loans transferred to
Promontoria.
"What we are saying is that there was a binding contractual
promise from Clydesdale Bank to support those clients and not
call in those debts."
As Promontoria has succeeded Clydesdale as creditor on the loans,
Ms MacLean believes it should also be bound by verbal promises
her clients claim were made to them. That would allow clients to
try to refinance their debt before Promontoria could enforce it,
she said.
"Refinancing will result in a payment being made to Promontoria
and the customer will end up in a lending position with a bank,"
she said.
The problem is that while the customers Ms MacLean is acting for
all have similar complaints, each case against Promontoria is
having to be pursued separately.
"In Scotland you can't do any kind of class action," Ms MacLean
said.
"We're having to litigate on a case by case basis because that's
all we can do in Scotland at the moment.
"We've had some success in defending and advancing claims but
[for clients] it takes money to do that and a certain degree of
determination."
As the parliament okayed the Civil Litigation Bill on May 1,
group actions are going to be possible, but only once the bill is
enacted, the Scottish Civil Justice Council draws up the rules
for governing them and the Court of Session gives its approval
for each action to proceed.
Nevertheless, in addition to a class action giving a voice to
individuals who cannot afford to pursue a claim on their own,
Ms MacLean said that bringing a group claim also has the
potential to have more impact than numerous small cases being
brought on a piecemeal basis.
"The end game is to try to strike a deal with Promontoria," she
explained.
In the meantime, Lending Standards Board chief executive David
Pickering and compliance head Liz Thompson will meet members of
MBM Commercial's Financial Claims Networking Group in Edinburgh
to discuss the issues faced by bank customers whose debts have
been sold on to third parties.
While the sheriff in the Portico Holdings case was very clear
that the customer's "obligations to [Promontoria] are the same as
they were to the bank", Mr Pickering believes that third parties
that buy books of debt from banks have obligations to customers
too.
"Selling a portfolio of debt is a commercial decision for each
registered firm," he said, adding that Standards of Lending
Practice "expect the customer to be treated in a manner equal to
that of their original lender".[GN]
COLORADO: Suit v. Sheriff Department Granted Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has granted class
action status to a lawsuit accusing a Colorado sheriff's
department of improperly holding people for possible deportation
by federal authorities.
District Court Judge Eric Bentley issued the decision on May 2,
expanding the lawsuit to any current and future El Paso County
Jail inmates who federal authorities ask the sheriff's department
to detain.
The Colorado American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in
February on behalf of two men being held in the jail, arguing
that state law required their release.
The sheriff's office has argued that it is housing immigrants on
federal agents' behalf.
The ACLU has said the suit is the first known challenge to an
attempt by federal immigration authorities to work around court
rulings that limit how they work with local sheriffs. [GN]
COMMERCEHUB: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Diana, writing for Albany Business Review, reports that a
CommerceHub shareholder has filed a lawsuit against the Albany,
New York, tech company following the announcement that
CommerceHub is being acquired for $1.1 billion.
Shareholder Brian Gordon has filed a class action lawsuit against
CommerceHub and its board of directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Gordon alleges
CommerceHub violated sections of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
CommerceHub (Nasdaq: CHUBA) is being acquired by the private
equity firms GTCR and Sycamore Partners in an all-cash deal
estimated to be around $1.1 billion. GTCR and Sycamore Partners
offered $22.75 in cash per share, a 24.5 percent premium compared
to the stock's close the day before the deal was announced.
The lawsuit alleges CommerceHub failed to disclose information
that is necessary for shareholders to "assess the fairness of the
proposed merger." The lawsuit claims CommerceHub has provided
incomplete information about financial projections for the
company, the sale process leading up to the merger and
relationships between the company's financial adviser, Evercore,
and one of the acquirers, GTCR.
The plaintiff, Mr. Gordon, is looking to delay the shareholder
vote, scheduled for May 18 until more information is provided, or
recover damages if the vote is approved. He is represented by
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP of Manhattan. The law firm specializes in
class action securities suits, and has filed similar suits in
recent weeks against Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. and DST Systems
Inc.
CommerceHub declined to comment.
CommerceHub uses a cloud-based platform that allows retailers to
list their products online and ship them to customers directly
from manufacturers. CommerceHub's 11,600 customers, including
Walmart, L.L. Bean and QVC, use the platform to support drop-
shipping, which connects retailers to a network of suppliers for
faster, cheaper shipping.
CommerceHub had $111.1 million in revenue in 2017, an 11 percent
increase from $100.6 million in 2016. Net income was $9.9 million
in 2017.
CEO Frank Poore founded the company in 1997 with Richard Jones,
chief technology officer, while they were at UAlbany. The
company has been bought and sold several times, and went public
in 2016 after spinning-off from Liberty Media. Since then, its
share price has ranged from a low of $12.72 to a high price of
$24.53.
Companywide, CommerceHub has more than 300 employees in Albany,
Seattle and Hertford, England.
The $1.1 billion acquisition is one of the largest acquisitions
in the Albany area in recent history. As part of the deal,
CommerceHub will become a privately-held company. It will remain
headquartered in Albany, where it has more than 200 employees.
[GN]
CORECIVIC INC: Sued in Georgia Over Illegal Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilhen Hill Barrientos, Margarito Velazquez Galicia, and Shoaib
Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00070-CDL (M.D.
Ga., April 17, 2018), seeks to end CoreCivic's forced labor
scheme intended to force detained immigrants to work for nearly
free, and remedy the unjust enrichment resulting from CoreCivic's
illegal labor practices.
CoreCivic, Inc. is a for-profit corporation providing
correctional and detention services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Werner, Esq.
Laura Rivera, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 340
Decatur, GA, 300030
Telephone: (404) 521-6700
Facsimile: (404) 221-5857
E-mail: daniel.werner@splcenter.org
laura.rivera@splcenter.org
- and -
Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
Bryan Lopez, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 486-8982
Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
bryan.lopez@splcenter.org
- and -
R. Andrew Free, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE
P.O. Box 90568
Nashville, TN 37209
Telephone: (844) 321-3221x1
Facsimile: (615) 829-8959
E-mail: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com
- and -
Azadeh Shahshahani, Esq.
Priyanka Bhatt, Esq.
PROJECT SOUTH
9 Gammon Avenue SE
Atlanta, GA 30315
Telephone: (404) 622-0602
Facsimile: (404) 622-4137
E-mail: azadeh@projectsouth.org
- and -
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
Lydia A. Wright, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
lwright@burnscharest.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson St., Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Royal Park Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Royal Park Investments SA/NA filed an appeal from the
District Court's opinion & order entered on April 11, 2018, in
its lawsuit entitled Royal Park Investments SA/NA v. Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, Case No. 14-cv-4394, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to hold Deutsche Bank liable for allegedly causing $3.1
billion of losses by failing to properly monitor 10 trusts backed
by toxic residential mortgages.
Royal Park accused Deutsche Bank, in its role as bond trustee, of
ignoring "widespread" deficiencies in how loans underlying the
trusts were underwritten and serviced, and failing to require
that lenders buy back defective loans.
The appellate case is captioned as Royal Park Investments SA/NA
v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Case No. 18-1074, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner Royal Park Investments SA/NA, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented
by:
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
Defendant-Respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
trustee, is represented by:
Bernard James Garbutt, III, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 309-6084
E-mail: bgarbutt@morganlewis.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Proctor's Injunction and Cert. Bids Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Trevor N. McFadden denied the Motions for Preliminary
Injunction and for Class Certification filed by the Plaintiffs in
the lawsuit entitled SHANEL PROCTOR, et al. v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00701-TNM (D.D.C.).
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JXkczW34
EDISON INT'L: Fort Lauderdale GERS Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement
System filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in its lawsuit
styled City of Fort Lauderdale GERS v. Edison International, et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01478-BEN-KSC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in July 2015
the purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in
federal court against Edison International, its then Chief
Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer. The
complaint was later amended to include subsidiary Southern
California Edison Company's former President as a defendant.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the securities
laws by failing to disclose that Edison International had ex
parte contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San Onofre
OII that were either unreported or more extensive than initially
reported. The initial complaint purported to be filed on behalf
of a class of persons, who acquired Edison International common
stock between March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class
Period").
The appellate case is captioned as City of Fort Lauderdale GERS
v. Edison International, et al., Case No. 18-55496, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 16, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on June 15, 2018;
-- Appellant City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees'
Retirement System's opening brief is due on July 25, 2018;
-- Appellees Theodore F. Craver, Edison International, Ronald
L. Litzinger and W. James Scilacci's answering brief is due
on August 24, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE GENERAL EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:
X. Jay Alvarez, Esq.
Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
Joseph David Daley, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
E-mail: jaya@rgrdlaw.com
spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
joed@rgrdlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees EDISON INTERNATIONAL, THEODORE F. CRAVER, W.
JAMES SCILACCI and RONALD L. LITZINGER are represented by:
John M. Gildersleeve, Esq.
John W. Spiegel, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 683-9241
E-mail: john.gildersleeve@mto.com
john.spiegel@mto.com
ELETROBRAS: Settles U.S. Class Action for $14.75 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Gram Slattery, writing for Reuters, reports that Brazilian state-
controlled power company Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA said
on May 2 it has reached a memorandum of understanding with
holders of its American depository shares to settle a class
action lawsuit by paying $14.75 million.
In a securities filing on May 1, Eletrobras, as the company is
commonly known, said the accord is subject to U.S. court
approval.
"The agreement is meant to close all the current cases initiated
by investors (in Eletrobras) that acquired ordinary and
preferential shares . . . represented by American Depository
Shares," the filing said.
U.S. investors sued Eletrobras after the company reported large
losses related to a sprawling corruption scandal in Brazil.
The company has said it would look into settlement options, while
also maintaining that it was a victim of wrongdoing and that it
was collaborating with U.S. prosecutors.
Eletrobras did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the
potential agreement, the filing said. [GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Kang" Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Sung Kang, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:18-
cv-00830 (C.D. Cal., May 11, 2018).
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as an information
services company. The Company offers credit information,
analytical tools, and marketing services. Experian Information
Solutions serves clients worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
EXPERT GROUP: Says Berkley Must Indemnify Defense of Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that Expert Group
International Inc., a visa-sponsoring placement service for au
pairs, told a Florida federal court on April 30 that its insurer,
Berkley Assurance Co., should not be able to get out of
indemnifying the company accused of conspiring with other sponsor
agencies to set low pay rates.
In a response to Berkley's motion for summary judgment, Expert
said Berkley decided to sell the policy to the company in
February 2015 despite knowing about the underlying class action
against au pair placement agencies that was filed in November.
The case is styled Berkley Assurance Company v. Expert Group
International Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-03466 (M.D. Fla.). The case
is assigned to Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. The case was
filed December 21, 2016. [GN]
FLIK INTERNATIONAL: Clarke Wants to Send Notice to FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JAMES CLARKE, for himself and
all others similarly situated v. FLIK INTERNATIONAL CORP. and
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01915-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.),
moves the Court to enter his proposed Order authorizing the
dissemination of notice to all similarly-situated persons
pursuant to the "opt-in" mechanism for collective actions
authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vFoAXn11
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 873-4836
E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 255-1550
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
aficzko@stephanzouras.com
FLINT, MI: Plaintiffs Lawyers in Tainted Water Cases in Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the leadership
fight in the Flint water contamination cases has escalated, with
co-lead counsel firing back against "false and misleading
accusations" and at least one defendant in the case raising
concerns about the communications that all the lead plaintiffs
lawyers have had with prospective class members.
Ted Leopold and Michael Pitt, co-lead counsel for the lead class
action brought on behalf of Flint residents, have asked U.S.
District Judge Judith Levy, who is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan,
to remove Hunter Shkolnik as one of two lawyers serving as
liaison counsel to the individual cases. [GN]
FLORIDA POWER: Must Face Class Action Over Irma Power Outages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida judge
on April 30 denied Florida Power & Light Co.'s bid to dodge a
class action filed by customers who experienced prolonged power
outages after Hurricane Irma and ordered the utility to produce
its contract with customers.
Judge David C. Miller denied the NextEra Energy Inc. unit's
motion to dismiss, ruling that the customers had sufficiently
pled breach of contract and gross negligence claims. [GN]
GEC RESTAURANT: Keyes Seeks Cert. of Green Eggs Servers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled BRITNY KEYES, on behalf of
herself and all persons similarly situated v. G.E.C. Restaurant
Management & Design, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01115-PD (E.D.
Pa.), asks the Court to conditionally certify a class of all
persons, who are working or have performed work for Green Eggs as
a Server within Pennsylvania or New Jersey at any time since May
1, 2015 (collectively "Servers" or the "FLSA Class").
Ms. Keyes also asks the Court to:
1. order the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel
the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and
e-mail addresses of all potential members of the FLSA Class
within 10 days of the date of Order; further Order the
Defendants to post notices in conspicuous locations at each
of their restaurants in Pennsylvania and New Jersey;
2. permit her to issue notice to all potential members of the
FLSA Class by first-class mail and e-mail, informing them
of their right to opt in to this case;
3. order an opt-in period of 90 days, beginning from the date
of the Plaintiff's first issuance of notice;
4. allow her to send reminder notices by first-class mail and
e-mail to all potential members of the FLSA Class, who have
not yet responded to notice within 45 days of the first
issuance of notice; and
5. approve her proposed form of notice and proposed Opt-In
Consent Form to be included in the issuance of notice.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7qUKFEub
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Marc L. Gelman, Esq.
Maureen W. Marra, Esq.
Daniel Keenan, Esq.
JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 351-0613
Facsimile: (215) 922-3524
E-mail: jgoodley@jslex.com
mgelman@jslex.com
mmarra@jslex.com
dkeenan@jslex.com
GENERAL INFORMATION: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Black" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant-Cross-Appellant General Information Services, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Thomas
Black v. General Information Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01731, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio at Cleveland.
The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Black v. General
Information Services, Inc., Case No. 18-3336, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 5, 2018, an
appeal was previously filed in the lawsuit. That appellate case
is titled Thomas Black, On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. General Information Services, Inc., Case
No. 18-3272.
General Information Services, Inc. provides background screening
services to various industries.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee THOMAS BLACK, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
COHEN, ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 781-77956
E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant GENERAL INFORMATION SERVICES,
INC., is represented by:
Jonathan Henry Krol, Esq.
REMINGER COMPANY
101 W. Prospect Avenue, Suite 1400
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 687-1311
E-mail: jkrol@reminger.com
GOOGLE INC: Court Grants Certiorari in Cy Pres Settlement Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mayer Brown LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) authorizes district courts to
approve class action settlements only when the terms of the
settlement are "fair, reasonable, and adequate." In the case,
Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961, the parties agreed to settle the
plaintiffs' privacy claims on behalf of a class of 129 million
individuals. Rather than distribute $5.3 million in settlement
funds among the class, who, the district court held, had not
pleaded any concrete harm -- the parties agreed to distribute the
funds to six privacy organizations. The Court granted certiorari
to determine whether and under what circumstances courts may
authorize so-called cy pres awards in class action settlements.
Mayer Brown is among counsel for the respondents. [GN]
HALLIBURTON CO: Challenges Retirement Class Action in 2d Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Brill, writing for Law360, reports that Halliburton asked
the Second Circuit on April 30 to sign off on a New York federal
judge's decision to apply a deferential standard of review when
considering whether the drilling giant's interpretation of a
benefit plan, which denied certain workers early retirement,
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Halliburton Co. wrote in its brief that U.S. District Judge Frank
P. Geraci was right to ask whether the company's benefits
committee acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it cut off
certain workers' access to early retirement in 2000.
The case is styled Kirkendall v. Halliburton, Case No. 17-3487
(2nd Cir.). The case was filed October 26, 2017. [GN]
HALYARD HEALTH: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bahamas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Halyard Health, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v.
Halyard Health, Inc., and Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No.
2:14-cv-08390-DMG-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is a California consumer class action relating to the sale of
surgical gowns.
The appellate case is captioned as Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v.
Halyard Health, Inc., and Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No.
18-55483, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 14, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on June 13, 2018;
-- Appellant Halyard Health, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
July 23, 2018;
-- Appellee Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC's answering brief is
due on August 23, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee BAHAMAS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, a California
limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, DBA Bahamas Surgery Center, is represented
by:
Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.
EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-7000
E-mail: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com
Defendant-Appellant HALYARD HEALTH, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
is represented by:
Daniel Paul Collins, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 683-9125
E-mail: Daniel.Collins@mto.com
- and -
Donald Beaton Verrilli, Jr., Attorney
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
1155 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (213) 683-9507
E-mail: donald.verrilli@mto.com
- and -
Stephen B. Devereaux, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
191 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
E-mail: sdevereaux@kslaw.com
HANFORD: Workers File Class Action Over Pension Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
Annette Cary, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that a class-
action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Hanford workers who lost
pension benefits under a failed economic development program.
Kennewick attorney Douglas McKinley filed the suit in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims.
He estimated the damages at $100 million.
About 2,200 Hanford nuclear reservation workers were told they
were being moved from Department of Energy Hanford contractors to
"enterprise companies" when Fluor was awarded the contract for
environmental cleanup in 1996.
The workers were not allowed to apply for other jobs.
The six new companies were awarded some Hanford work, with a plan
that they would also develop some non-Hanford business lines to
help stabilize and broaden the Tri-City economy.
Transferred workers have said they continued to do the same
Hanford work, sometimes at the same desk as before and with the
same co-workers.
But the six companies were no longer considered part of Hanford,
and years of service figured into the workers' pensions were
capped, reducing workers' eventual pensions.
The lawsuit seeks to restore full pension benefits and a judgment
to be determined at a trial.
Mr. McKinley said that many, if not most, of the employees of
enterprise companies are entitled to tens of thousands of dollars
in additional retirement benefits.
In 2016, Mr. McKinley filed a related class-action lawsuit. It
covered just one of the enterprise companies, Lockheed Martin
Services Inc.
By 2000, two of the six enterprise companies had folded.
Lockheed Martin Services stuck around at Hanford until 2016, with
some of its employees not accruing years of service toward their
Hanford pensions for 20 years.
Employees at other enterprise companies also wanted a class-
action lawsuit filed on their behalf when they learned of the
lawsuit for Lockheed workers, but Mr. McKinley wanted to first
see how the initial lawsuit progressed.
"Over the course of the last year and a half, as we have
litigated the original lawsuit, we have become much more
confident in the merits of a case filed on behalf of the
enterprise company employees generally," he posted on his law
firm website.
In September 2017, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissed the
class-action lawsuit brought against Lockheed Martin. A judge
found that the plaintiffs failed to show that DOE entered into an
implied contract with them.
The ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
In the latest lawsuit, Mr. McKinley spells out the DOE pension
policy and how he believes DOE is contractually obligated to
enterprise company employees.
The Department of Energy ordered the development of the multi-
employer pension plan for Hanford workers, which took effect
about 1987, the lawsuit said.
DOE pays for the plan and approves any changes, the lawsuit said.
As contractors change at Hanford, workers typically are
transferred to the new contractors. Before the Hanford pension
plan was created, DOE faced the administrative burdens and costs
of transferring pension funds for thousands of workers from old
contractors to new contractors.
The Hanford pension plan stated that as Hanford workers were
transferred among employers at the nuclear reservation, their
pension benefits would transfer with them and benefits for years
of service would continue to accrue.
But the new enterprise companies were not listed as employers in
the Hanford pension plan.
Some enterprise company employees responded by trying to begin
withdrawing their pension benefits shortly after they were
assigned to the companies. They were denied their benefits and
told they must remain in the Hanford pension plan, according to
the lawsuit.
The pension plan then was changed to say that part of the formula
for figuring pensions for enterprise company workers would
include their highest five salary years, including at the
enterprise companies, but their years of service still were not
included in the calculation.
The federal government continued to make payments into the
Hanford pension plan for enterprise company workers to meet the
increased financial requirements from the change.
That demonstrated that the federal government had pension
obligations to the plaintiffs, the lawsuit said, despite the
earlier ruling that the government had no implied contract for
enterprise company pensions.
The employees of enterprise companies who want to participate in
the new proposed class action lawsuit must fill out a
representation agreement with Mr. McKinley's firm or they will
not be included in the lawsuit.
Lockheed plaintiffs in the 2016 class action are still
represented and don't need to sign up for the new lawsuit,
Mr. McKinley said. One possibility is that the two lawsuits
could be combined at some point.
The representation agreement is posted at www.mckinleylaw.com.
It must be mailed or dropped off at the law office at 1030 North
Center Parkway in Kennewick. [GN]
HARMONY GOLD: Silicosis Class Action Nears Conclusion
-----------------------------------------------------
Allan Seccombe, writing for BusinessDay, reports that SA's
largest and most expensive class action to date, brought by mine
workers against seven gold mining companies, will finally
conclude on April 26 with the signing of a R5bn mediated
settlement.
Seven gold-mining companies have made provisions in the past year
for about R5bn that will go towards establishing a trust to pay
miners afflicted with silicosis after working underground and
breathing silica-laden dust.
Participants confirmed that the parties could sign an agreement
on April 26, provided there were no last-minute developments.
The claimants' attorneys in the silicosis and tuberculosis class-
action litigation and the mining companies' occupational lung
disease working group will host a briefing in Johannesburg to
sign the agreement.
The agreement will have to be ratified by a court before it can
be implemented.
Richard Spoor, the lawyer representing more than 20 ill miners in
the litigation, said on May 2: "We are sitting on the brink of
reaching an agreement in this matter and we hope to have it
confirmed in writing and signed on April 26."
Mr. Spoor said he had come under pressure from former gold-mine
employees to reach a settlement quickly instead of dragging the
matter through the courts for years.
"We might have done better if we continued litigating for longer,
but weighing heavily on us was the desire to reach a conclusion
and get money distributed to people," he said.
It was impossible to put a figure to the number of former miners
or their beneficiaries who stood to benefit from the agreement,
with estimates ranging from 50,000 to 100,000 people. Ailing
former mine workers were dying at a rate of about 4% a year based
on the records of 30,000 people held in the databases of the
litigants' attorneys, he said. If the primary claimant had died,
then his widow and dependants stood to benefit.
The exact details of the agreement are unknown, but core to the
successful implementation would be tracking and verifying those
afflicted by the disease. Many come from rural areas in SA and
neighbouring countries and many are illiterate.
Mining companies are not likely to pay the full R5bn into the
trust, but rather a portion of the amount to fund the trust's
work; then they will make payments as claimants come into the
system over the next 12 years or more.
The trust would make cash calls on companies, Graham Briggs,
Harmony Gold's former CEO and head of the occupational lung
diseases working group, said in February.
In the silicosis settlement, the mining companies would pay a
lump sum into a trust that would locate, verify and assess former
miners with silicosis and occupational tuberculosis. Once
confirmed, the trust would make a payment to former miners or to
the families of miners who had died and who had had a confirmed
occupational lung disease, Mr. Briggs said.
In the 12 months to end-October 2017, there were 7,756
compensation payments made to former miners with occupational
lung diseases, worth R226m, compared with 1,628 compensation
payments were worth R79m in the same period in 2015.
The funds were paid from R3.5bn in unclaimed funds held in the
Department of Health's Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases.
Six doctors and senior managers from gold mines were seconded to
the fund, stepping up the tracking and tracing of former miners
in SA and neighbouring countries, leading to the increase in
claims. [GN]
INZIRILLOS COMPANY: Faces "Rocha" Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inzirillo's
Company. The case is styled as Joao Carlos Rocha and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees, Plaintiff v. Inzirillo's
Company, a Florida Profit Corporation and Elio D. Inzirillo
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21887-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
May 11, 2018).
Inzirillo's Company in Fort Lauderdale, FL, specializes in
carpentry, and architect work.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
Courthouse Tower
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Tel: (305) 416-5000
Fax: (305) 416-5005
Email: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
- and -
Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
Court House Tower
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, Fl 33130
Tel: (305) 416-5000
Fax: (305) 416-5005
Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jorge Freddy Perera, Esq.
Perera Barnhart
12555 Orange Drive
Second Floor
Davie, FL 33330
Tel: (786) 485-5232
Fax: (786) 485-1519
Email: freddy@pererabarnhart.com
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Court Stays Proceedings in "O'Boyle" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings in the lawsuit styled BARBARA O'BOYLE v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00454-WED (E.D.
Wisc.).
On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint,
according to the order. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed
what the Court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for
class certification. In that motion the Plaintiff moved to
certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the
court to stay further proceedings on that motion.
In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint," Judge
Duffin notes. "The pendency of that motion protects a putative
class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However,
Judge Duffin explains, because parties are generally unprepared
to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning
of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the
district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional
discovery or investigation."
Accordingly, Judge Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings. The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZsCDTqzd
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Counsel and Plaintiff Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel
for the putative shareholder class actions against Kandi
Technologies Group, Inc. are pending, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its
current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The complaints generally allege violations of the federal
securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017. All the
remaining cases are in the New York federal court, and motions
for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel are
pending.
Headquartered in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's
Republic of China, the Company is one of the People's Republic of
China's leading producers and manufacturers of electric vehicle
products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for sale in China and
global markets. The Company conducts its primary business
operations through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Zhejiang Kandi
Vehicles Co., Ltd., and the partially and wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Kandi Vehicles.
KEL LAW FIRM: Faces Class Action Over Bankruptcy Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that a
lawsuit against Orlando-based KEL law firm, which has changed its
name to LawyerASAP, is moving to the class certification stage
after the firm lost an appeal.
The suit is over bankruptcy fees paid to the once-busy firm over
a period of years, and it seeks punitive damages of $1 million.
The firm is led by Orlando attorney Matt Englett. The lawsuit
was filed by a former client of his firm, Orlando resident
Loyd Cadwell.
The suit accuses the firm of telling its bankruptcy clients to
pay their legal fees with a credit card -- which courts have held
is illegal because new debts are prohibited in the days before
filing a bankruptcy, and during the bankruptcy.
A federal judge in Orlando, Paul G. Byron, had thrown out the
suit, concluding that there was no allegation that Mr. Englett's
firm "acted with an improper purpose or with intent to manipulate
the bankruptcy system."
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has kicked the
lawsuit back to Mr. Byron's court, overturning his decision. The
appellate opinion said "the district court erred in concluding
that Mr. Cadwell was required to allege that KEL's advice was
given for some additional, invalid purpose."
Mr. Englett, managing partner of KEL and now head of LawyerASAP,
provided a statement in response to questions about the lawsuit
when it was filed: "It is KEL's policy never to take a credit
card payment for Bankruptcy retainers. Due to the active
litigation we cannot comment further."
The lawsuit says Mr. Cadwell paid his bankruptcy fees to KEL in
January using a Discover credit card and a BJ's credit card, and
his credit card statements attached to the suit have KEL charges
on them. Mr. Cadwell decided to switch to a new law firm, which
noticed the prior fee payment on credit cards. Jacksonville law
firm Mickler & Mickler filed the proposed class action on behalf
of Mr. Cadwell.
Mr. Cadwell's attorneys have started to introduce evidence that
other KEL clients were also advised to use credit cards. The
suit could draw in thousands of clients for KEL's busy bankruptcy
practice over the past few years. KEL boomed during and just
after the Great Recession, handling foreclosure defense and
bankruptcy among other things.
The suit seeks the return of all bankruptcy legal fees paid to
KEL with credit cards, which it says were about $1,700 for
Mr. Cadwell. Other bankruptcy attorneys have told the Orlando
Sentinel it is common knowledge in the legal world that
bankruptcy fees can't be paid with credit cards.
Incurring new credit card debt just prior to a bankruptcy was a
big issue in discussions about the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. The credit card industry
spent millions on lobbying for changes in prior law, to specially
state that debt relief agencies, including law firms, cannot
advise clients to rack up new debts prior to filing a bankruptcy.
Before that reform, it was known that some financial or legal
professionals would tell clients to buy things on credit before
filing for bankruptcy because those debts would be erased. [GN]
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Drop Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts remains pending, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
The Company said, "Four purported class action lawsuits have been
filed against us and certain of our current and former officers
(Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James
Oliviero). Three of these actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
respectively Terrell Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:16-cv-06131, filed on August 2, 2016, Richard J.
Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-
06218, filed on August 4, 2016, and Richard King v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06233, filed on
August 5, 2016.
"The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased our common stock between February 25,
2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and the King complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased
our common stock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016.
"On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, which complaint was subsequently amended. The
Karth complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders
who purchased our common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1,
2016.
"The Jackson, Erickson and King matters were transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 5,
2017 and subsequently consolidated with the Karth action. Each
complaint generally alleges that we and certain of our current
and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning us and
our business operations and future prospects in light of the
August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in our supply of
Auryxia. We have moved to dismiss the consolidated action.
"Two stockholder derivative complaints were also filed on
December 16, 2016 against us and certain of our current and
former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur
and James Oliviero), certain of our current directors (Kevin J.
Cameron, Daniel P. Regan, Steven C. Gilman, Michael Rogers and
John P. Butler) and our former directors (Michael P. Tarnok,
Joseph Feczko, Jack Kaye and Wyche Fowler, Jr.), in the Superior
Court of Massachusetts, one captioned Venkat Vara Prasad Malledi
v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 16-3865 and one
captioned James Anderson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 16-3866.
"Each of these two complaints generally allege that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to us,
unjustly enriched themselves by their actions, abused their
control positions with us, mismanaged us and wasted corporate
assets since July 31, 2013 in light of our August 1, 2016
announcement by us of an interruption in the supply of our
product Auryxia.
"On June 27, 2017, the Superior Court granted the parties' motion
to consolidate and stay the derivative litigations. All of the
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs. We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and
intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. There is no
assurance, however, that we or the other defendants will be
successful in our defense of either of these lawsuits or that
insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or
judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Moreover, we
are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range
of possible losses at this time. A resolution of these lawsuits
adverse to us or the other defendants, however, could have a
material effect on our financial position and results of
operations in the period in which the particular lawsuit is
resolved."
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on bringing innovative
medicines to people with renal disease.
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Waters" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Crystal Waters, et al. v.
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-ODW-AFM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Crystal
Waters initiated the lawsuit in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC650906), but was removed on
January 12, 2018 to the District Court.
Kohls Department Stores, Inc., operates department stores in the
United States. The Company offers apparel, footwear, accessories
and home products to middle-income customers. The Company was
incorporated in 1986 and is based in Menomee Falls, Wisconsin.
Kohl's Department Stores, operates as a subsidiary of Kohl
Corporation.
The appellate case is captioned as Crystal Waters, et al. v.
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Case No. 18-80048, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents CRYSTAL WATERS, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, and TONY VALENTI,
an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq.
ESENSTEN LAW
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 273-3090
Facsimile: (310) 207-5969
E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com
- and -
Robert Lawrence Esensten, Esq.
WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, LLP
5567 Reseda Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
Telephone: (818) 609-2384
Facsimile: (818) 996-8266
E-mail: resensten@wccelaw.com
Defendant-Petitioner KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., is
represented by:
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 808-5145
E-mail: jjacobson@KelleyDrye.com
KONA GRILL: January 2019 Trial Set for "Boots" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the class action complaint of Mitchell Boots against
Kona Grill, Inc. has been set for January 1, 2019, according to
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
On July 27, 2017, a class action complaint was filed against Kona
Sushi, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, by
Mitchell Boots, individually and on behalf of a Proposed Rule 23
Class, in the United States District Court for Minnesota
claiming, among other things, that the Company violated Minnesota
gratuity/tip pooling laws with respect to certain classes of
restaurant employees. The plaintiff has brought claims on behalf
of a putative Minnesota class and a putative national class of
employees. On October 25, 2017, the plaintiff amended the
complaint to withdraw the national class claims and other common
law claims, leaving one claim on behalf of a putative Minnesota
class, and added a second named Plaintiff, Tracy Fortman. On
January 9, 2018, a pre-trial scheduling order was issued by the
District Court, setting pre-trial dates and setting a trial date
of January 1, 2019. The Company is in the early stages of
discovery and does not expect the result of such complaint to
have a material adverse effect on the Company. However, there is
no assurance that any adverse ruling or settlement in that matter
would not have a material impact on the Company's cash position
and operations.
Kona Grill, Inc., including its wholly-owned subsidiaries, owns
and operates upscale casual dining restaurants under the name
"Kona Grill."
LAMP PLUS: High Court Has Yet to Rule on Class Arbitration Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the next
U.S. Supreme Court term could be a big one for class action
practitioners after the court granted two privacy class cases
April 30.
The court hasn't shown the appetite for limiting the class action
device that it had before Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016.
But these grants "may signal the Court's renewed interest in
class actions," Rhonda Wasserman, professor at the University of
Pittsburgh Law School, told Bloomberg Law.
They also may show "Justice Neil Gorsuch's desire to weigh in on
such important questions as cy pres distributions, class
arbitration, and class action waivers," she said. Wasserman's
scholarship focuses on class actions and other complex
litigation.
One petition, Frank v. Gaos, asks the court to review a $8.5
million class settlement resolving allegations that Alphabet Inc.
subsidiary Google shared user search terms with third parties.
None of the settlement funds would go to class members. Instead,
$5.3 million will go to consumer privacy education and research
programs as cy pres, meaning the funds are distributed in a way
that indirectly benefits class members because it isn't feasible
to compensate them directly.
The other, Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, concerns whether class
arbitration of employee data breach claims is allowed when the
arbitration agreement doesn't expressly forbid it.
Case Roberts Has Been Waiting For
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. hinted in 2013 that he was
interested in getting the cy pres issue before the U.S. Supreme
Court.
"In a suitable case, this court may need to clarify the limits on
the use of such remedies," Justice Roberts wrote in a statement
accompanying denial of review in a Facebook privacy case, Marek
v. Lane.
"Frank v. Gaos provides the court with such an opportunity,"
Ms. Wasserman said. The court's decision could provide guidance
on whether "settlements that do not even attempt to compensate
absent class members" pass muster under the rule that governs
class actions, she said.
Ted Frank, the class member who asked the Supreme Court to review
the Google deal, said the use of cy pres has decreased since the
Marek statement. Mr. Frank, director of litigation at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action Fairness
in Washington, also filed the petition in Marek.
Overall, parties have realized they need to pull back the reins
on cy pres, Mr. Frank said. But there are still settlements like
the Google deal, which he called "aggressively abusive."
The parties justified giving settlement funds to cy pres because
it wouldn't be feasible to distribute funds from the deal
directly to the 129 million class members who would receive only
pennies apiece.
But Mr. Frank called that an "absolute misstatement." There has
never been a class action that distributed funds to every class
member so those who make claims would likely get more than
pennies, he said.
Professor Howard Erichson, who studies complex litigation at
Fordham University School of Law in New York, laid out what is at
stake in the case.
Unchecked use of cy pres threatens "to undermine the public
interest because they are an easy way for class counsel to earn
fees -- and for defendants to get res judicata -- without
providing a meaningful remedy to class members," he said. But
banning cy pres altogether could kill class actions where it's
hard to get money to class members.
"Cy pres settlements run amok have become a real problem, but I'm
worried about whether the Court will go too far," Mr. Erichson
said.
Mr. Frank is confident the Google settlement is egregious enough
to turn the court against cy pres-only settlements. "This is not
a close case," he said. "We're going for a nine to nothing
decision on this one."
Counsel for the parties to the Google settlement didn't respond
to requests for comment.
More to Say on Class Arbitration
The Supreme Court has generally favored companies' rights to use
arbitration clauses to keep class actions by employees and
customers out of court.
Lamps Plus will give the court the chance to rule explicitly on
the ability of employees and consumers to arbitrate their claims
on a class basis.
The Ninth Circuit allowed class arbitration by Lamps Plus
employees because their employment agreement with the company is
ambiguous on whether it allows employees to arbitrate as a group.
But the U.S. Supreme Court held in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v.
Animalfeeds Int'l Corp. that class arbitration is so different
from individual arbitration that the arbitrator can't presume
that the parties agreed to it by simply agreeing to arbitrate.
Lamps Plus employees filed a class action after an employee was
tricked by a spoof email that appeared to be from a supervisor.
She sent copies of current and former employees' W-2 tax forms to
a third party.
The case "demonstrates that the powerful are not using
arbitration clauses for speedy resolution, but instead as a tool
to eliminate all employee rights in the most egregious
circumstances," class counsel Michele Vercoski told Bloomberg
Law.
"Arbitration provisions were not intended to allow companies to
not only inflict harm upon employees, but also block meaningful
recourse in any forum to such injured employees and effectively
avoid any liability for its actions," Mr. Vercoski --
mmv@mccunewright.com -- partner at McCune Wright Arevalo LLP in
Ontario, Calif., said.
Attorney for Lamps Plus, Andrew Pincus, said the company has
strong arguments on the merits. "The case deviated significantly
from what the court has said in previous decisions on class
arbitration," Mr. Pincus, partner at Mayer Brown LLP in
Washington, said.
The case doesn't raise the big question still looming over the
arbitration debate: whether employers should be allowed to
explicitly bar class arbitration, Mr. Erichson said.
"The fact that the Court granted cert in Lamps Plus reflects the
Supreme Court majority's antipathy toward class actions,"
Mr. Erichson said. "The Supreme Court has made it far too easy
for corporations to avoid class actions by using arbitration
clauses, and ultimately the solution will arrive by amending the
Federal Arbitration Act."
But change won't come to the FAA "until the political winds blow
differently on these questions than they do today," he said. [GN]
LIBERTY POWER: Faces "Perrong" Suit in D. Delaware
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Power Corp,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Andrew R. Perrong, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Liberty
Power Corp, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00712-UNA (D.
Del., May 11, 2018).
Liberty Power Corp. supplies retail electricity to business and
government customers. It serves small and mid-size businesses,
large commercial and industrial businesses, residential, and
institutional customers, as well as city, state, and national
government agencies in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and
Washington DC. The company was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary F. Higgins, Esq.
Law Office of Mary Higgins
Commonwealth Building
260 Chapman Road, Suite 201
Newark, DE 19702
Tel: (302) 894-4357
Fax: (302) 525-6618
Email: mary.higgins@letsbelegal.com
- and -
Mary Anne McLane Detweiler, Esq.
Law Office of Mary Higgins
Commonwealth Building
260 Chapman Road, Suite 201
Newark, DE 19702
Tel: (302) 894-4357
Email: maryamclane@letsbelegal.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Appeals Ruling in Youth Justice Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant City of Los Angeles filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Youth Justice Coalition, et al. v. City
of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:16-cv-07932-VAP-RAO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
The appellate case is captioned as Youth Justice Coalition, et
al. v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 18-55485, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 17, 2018, the
District Court has ordered the city of Los Angeles to stop
enforcing most of its remaining gang injunctions, marking the end
of the controversial practice that critics long called
unconstitutional.
The preliminary injunction will end restrictive sanctions for
roughly 1,500 people put under gang injunctions without due
process by the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles
City Attorney's office, according to the ACLU of Southern
California. Because the City did not allow accused individuals
the opportunity to defend themselves, the court issued a
preliminary holding that the city likely violated the
Constitution, the statement said.
The ACLU Foundation of Southern California, the Urban Peace
Institute, and the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP filed a
class action suit on behalf of people unconstitutionally
subjected to gang injunctions, along with the Youth Justice
Coalition, an organization fighting against unjust accusations of
gang affiliation.
According to the LAPD's online site a gang injunction is a
restraining order that "seeks a court order declaring the gang's
public behavior a nuisance and asking for special rules directed
toward its activity." They argue that "injunctions can address
the neighborhood's gang problem before it reaches the level of
felony crime activity."
The ACLU says that the City has put a number of Angelenos, mostly
men of color, under probation-like conditions for years, solely
based on arbitrary claims of gang membership. Some of the
effects of the injunctions included people being unable to ride
in vehicles together to schools or churches, and in some alleged
gang territories, being unable to wear blue Dodgers gear.
"This decision is historic in confirming what communities of
color have said for decades," Youth Justice Coalition's Kim
McGill said in the release. "Gang injunctions are prisons
without walls. They are overly harsh, serve to cut people off
from the opportunities and supports they need to succeed, serve
as tools of gentrification and displacement, and criminalize
thousands of people for non-criminal acts further enforcing
racial and economic discrimination in the implementation of
public safety."[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees YOUTH JUSTICE COALITION, a non-profit
organization; PETER ARELLANO; and JOSE REZA, individuals, for
themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
individuals, are represented by:
Peter Bibring, Esq.
Aditi Fruitwala, Esq.
ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
140 S. Lake Avenue
Pasadena, CA 81101
Telephone: (213) 977-5295
Facsimile: (213) 977-5299
E-mail: pbibring@aclusocal.org
afruitwala@aclusocal.org
- and -
Jacob Kreilkamp, Esq.
Laura Danielle Smolowe, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 683-9260
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
E-mail: jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com
laura.smolowe@mto.com
Defendant-Appellant CITY OF LOS ANGELES is represented by:
Agnes Patricia Ursea, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-8059
LOWE'S: Employees File Class Action Over 401K Investment Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
WSOCTV.com reports that a quarter-million Lowe's employees may
have lost out on money because of the way the company has been
handling retirement accounts.
Workers filed a class action lawsuit against the Mooresville-
based company on April 27, claiming Lowe's switched 401K
investment funds in 2015 and put one billion dollars into a fund
that was untested and underperforming.
The lawsuit claims that Lowe's should have done more research and
picked a better investment fund.
It claims the investment has already lost more than $100 million
compared to the funds it replaced.
The lawsuit wants Lowe's to find a way to get that money back and
make sure workers' 401Ks don't suffer.
Channel 9 has reached out to Lowe's for a comment, but we have
yet to hear back. [GN]
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Kehoe, writing for Financial Review, reports that Macquarie
Infrastructure Corp is facing potential securities fraud class
action lawsuits from American law firms that are trying to drum
up support from investors upset by its 41 per cent share price
plunge in late February.
US-listed MIC's potential legal tussle came as the Macquarie
Group-managed business unleashed new rebuttals to a shareholder
activism campaign by Moab Capital Partners, which wants to fire
six MIC directors and terminate lucrative fees paid to
Australia's Macquarie.
In a boost for MIC's board, proxy adviser firm Glass Lewis has
recommended shareholders approve all MIC directors at its annual
shareholder meeting on May 15.
Investor-rights law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro announced on
May 2 AEST that a securities class action is pending on behalf of
MIC investors in the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
San Francisco-based Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein --
reed@hbsslaw.com -- said in an interview that several large
institutional investor clients had requested New York-listed
MIC's conduct be investigated to identify a lead plaintiff for a
class action that would demand compensation for financial losses.
"We're focused on investors' enormous losses and defendants'
apparent omissions about one of Macquarie's core operations in
light of their recent denials of issues with IMTT," Mr Kathrein
said in an earlier statement.
New York-based The Klein Law Firm published a press release
seeking investors for an investigation concerning MIC's "possible
violations" of US securities laws.
Class action lawsuits and legal press releases are not uncommon
in the US, whereby law firms try to lure prospective clients for
court action.
The plaintiff law firms have seized on shareholder anger at MIC's
alleged belated shock profit guidance downgrade on February 21
that led its $US1.44 December quarter dividend to be slashed to a
forecast $US1 for each quarter in 2018.
Market disclosure
MIC owns, operates and invests in a diversified group of US
businesses including bulk liquids terminals firm International-
Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT), airport services business Atlantic
Aviation, a Hawaiian gas producer and a gas-fired power
generation facility in New Jersey.
The controversy centres on the handling of a February 21 market
disclosure about the loss of oil-trading customers at its IMTT
bulk liquid storage facility in the state of Louisiana, which
delivers about 40 per cent of MIC's income.
In a regulatory filing, MIC hit back at New York shareholder
Moab's alleged "incorrect and misleading" statements in April.
Contrary to Moab's claim, MIC said it provided an accurate and
timely disclosure of customer departures at IMTT.
IMTT received notices from a number of companies in late December
that they would not be renewing their oil storage contracts in
January, MIC said.
The non-renewals occurred after MIC's third-quarter profit
release in November and were disclosed at the next earnings
announcement on February 21, 2018, triggering a 41 per cent share
price crash on a single trading day.
Hagens Berman's Mr Kathrein said a class action would probe two
issues.
First, the non-disclosure by MIC about IMTT's dependence on no.6
oil, which he said was a risk to investors due to its declining
use because of high pollution levels and environmental
regulations.
Second, whether MIC executives were aware earlier of the
potential for oil customers to quit contracts and if the
financial risk should have been disclosed to the market sooner.
MIC declined to comment on possible legal action, but is expected
to contest any claims.
'This was the right decision'
Beyond the IMTT downturn, MIC's filing said several other factors
also drove the dividend cut, including enhanced balance sheet
flexibility, shifts in financial markets, US tax reform and
investment opportunities.
"The MIC board and management believe that this was the right
decision and will lead to the creation of superior shareholder
value," MIC said.
It tried to shore up shareholder support for the company's
directors who will face a tough re-election vote on May 15.
MIC, which now has a market capitalisation of about $US3.2
billion ($4.2 billion), advocated the broad business experience
of its board, arguing that five of the seven directors were
independent.
MIC rejected Moab's claims that the management service agreement
fees paid to Macquarie were overpriced, saying they were
predominantly based on market capitalisation and total return
outperformance of a benchmark utilities index subject to a "high-
water mark".
"As the second largest holder of MIC shares, there is a strong
alignment between shareholders and the manager [Macquarie]," MIC
said.
MIC said it had outperformed the S&P 500 and relevant benchmark
indices since its initial public offering in 2004.
June deadline for Hagens Berman case
Moab calculates that since the start of 2015 to April 13, 2018,
MIC shareholders have seen total returns on their shares decline
more than 32 per cent, versus the US S&P 500 index gaining over
38 per cent. Macquarie collected more than $US500 million in
management and incentive fees from MIC for this period.
Some MIC shareholders have criticised the annual fee payouts,
arguing it clashed with Macquarie's remuneration model of
deferring up to 70 per cent of remuneration over six-to-seven
years for senior bankers.
Macquarie (via MIMUSA) was estimated to own about 6.7 per cent of
MIC as of March 2018, making it the second largest shareholder
behind index fund firm Vanguard Group, according to Morningstar.
Several institutional shareholders who are angry at MIC and
supportive of Moab's push expressed limited interest in the class
actions.
Moab managing member Michael Rothenberg said it was not behind
the class actions and is focusing on gaining support for changes
from other long-term shareholders. "We're focused on our own
campaign," Mr Rothenberg said.
Investors who acquired MIC shares between February 22, 2016, and
February 21, 2018, and suffered losses have until June 25 to join
the Hagens Berman case.
Hagens Berman's Mr Kathrein has litigated more than 100
securities fraud class actions including against Bank of America
and Oracle, as well as other plaintiff cases against AT&T, Google
and AOL.
At least eight institutional and wealthy individual shareholders
in the US-listed MIC told The Australian Financial Review they
endorsed Moab's push to overhaul the MIC board and Macquarie
contract, as well as possibly selling the company.
'Strategy to drive future growth'
The vote on directors is likely to depend on the recommendations
to passive and active institutional shareholders from proxy
adviser firms such as Institutional Shareholder Services.
Overhauling the management fee contract seems unlikely. Under the
rules MIC must underperform a benchmark for 16 of 20 consecutive
quarters and two-thirds of shareholders must support the change.
Macquarie is paid a base fee of about $US70 million annually to
manage MIC's four infrastructure assets, though that payment will
be cut by $US20 million this year due to the expected profit
decline.
MIC said it has a "clear strategy to drive future growth",
including repositioning IMTT, a strategic review of its
contracted power business and non-core asset divestments.
Before a first quarter profit update due on May 3, MIC reported
on April 30 that it expected to generate $US705 million in
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation
(EBITDA) this year, broadly flat on 2017, a record year.
MIC's indebted and high-dividend model was vulnerable to an
operating downturn.
MIC's debt was more than five times EBITDA. Its dividend payout
ratio was 81 per cent of "adjusted" free cash flow in 2017.
Share retreat
The slowdown at the Louisiana energy liquids terminal business
began in December, shortly before outgoing chief executive James
Hooke exited in January to return to Sydney to work for
Macquarie.
As well as the management fees paid to Macquarie, huge bonus
payments enabled Mr Hooke to collect $US21.1 million in MIC
remuneration over the last three years, including $US8.9 million
in 2015.
Before the recent crash, Mr Hooke was widely credited with doing
an outstanding job turning around MIC from near-bankruptcy in the
2008-09 financial crisis to become a high-return business for
shareholders.
MIC, a master limited partnership, traded as high as $US87 in
2015, recovering from below $US1 during the financial crisis a
decade ago.
On November 2, 2017, Mr Hooke raised the dividend 10 per cent and
indicated the payout ratio was safe.
"Management's expectation for growth in cash generation and
dividends assumes the continued improvement in operating results
of existing businesses, together with anticipated contributions
from investments and acquisitions," MIC said at the time.
Following the surprise dividend cut in February, the stock price
of MIC fell below $US37, from $US63 immediately before the fourth
quarterly profit announcement.
MIC's share price closed at $US37.63 in New York on May 1.
MIC told investors on February 21 that "in December (2017) and
early January (2018), a number of customers terminated contracts
for a significant amount of No.6 oil capacity at IMTT's facility
in St. Rose".
The utilisation rates fell from 93.2 per cent in the September
quarter to 89.6 per cent by end of 2017. [GN]
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: June 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Macquarie
Infrastructure Corporation (NYSE:MIC) to the June 25, 2018 Lead
Plaintiff deadline in the securities class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. If you purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Macquarie
Infrastructure Corporation between February 22, 2016 and
February 21, 2018 and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP. For more information visit:
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/MIC
or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's
investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing
MIC@hbsslaw.com.
After the close of trading on February 21, 2018, Defendants
announced disappointing fourth quarter earnings of $0.43 per
share and a 31% dividend cut. They blamed the poor performance
on the decline in use of heavy residual oil products, namely No.
6 oil fuel, which was a previously undisclosed dependency of its
core International-Matex Tank Terminals ("IMTT") business.
This news drove the price of Macquarie shares down $26.21, or
about 41%, to close at $37.41 on February 22, 2018.
"We're focused on investors' enormous losses and Defendants'
apparent omissions about one of Macquarie's core operations in
light of their recent denials of issues with IMTT," said Hagens
Berman partner Reed Kathrein.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Macquarie should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email MIC@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national
investor-rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington
with 70+ attorneys in 11 offices across the country. The Firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. [GN]
MAGIC WAY: Sued in New York Over Failure to Proper Pay Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Bouhajrah, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Magic Way Gourmet Deli Inc.; Tinton Convenience
Corp.; Meqdad Musleh and John Doe Defendants #1 - #3, Case No.
1:18-cv-03329 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay cooks, kitchen assistants, counter
persons, and delivery persons' minimum wage and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate Magic Way Gourmet Deli located at
643 Tinton Avenue, Bronx, NY 10455 and Tinton Convenience located
at 790 E. 152nd St. Store #2 Bronx, NY 10455. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 3rd Avenue Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718)669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
MDC PARTNERS: Appeal in "Paniccia" Class Lawsuit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners Inc. has taken an appeal from the order rejecting
the defendants' bid to address the scope of the proposed class
definition in the litigation commenced by Roberto Paniccia in
Canada. According to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, the appeal remains pending.
On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of
Brantford, Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming
the following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal,
former CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A.
LLP. The Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other
Canadian provinces and territories) as well as common law
misrepresentation based on allegedly materially false and
misleading statements in the Company's public statements, as well
as omitting to disclose material facts with respect to the SEC
investigation.
MDC Partners said, "The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend this suit." The plaintiff has served his material for
leave to proceed under the Ontario Securities Act and that motion
was scheduled to be heard on May 15, 2018."
A motion by the Company and other defendants to address the scope
of the proposed class definition was dismissed and the Company is
appealing that decision.
MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding company
based in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model,
in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partner
agency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. It
has more than 50 partner firms worldwide.
MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The defendant's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint related to Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.'s 2017 merger
with Cempra, Inc., remains pending, according to Melinta's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. Oral argument has yet
to be scheduled.
On November 3, 2017, Melinta merged with Cempra, Inc. in a
business combination. Prior to the merger, on November 4, 2016,
a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Durham
Division, naming Cempra, Inc. (now known as Melinta Therapeutics,
Inc.) and certain of Cempra's officers as defendants. Two
substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina on November 22,
2016, and December 30, 2016, respectively. Pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, on July 6, 2017, the
court consolidated the three lawsuits into a single action and
appointed a lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel in the
consolidated case.
On August 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendants
between July 7, 2015, and November 4, 2016 (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers of
Cempra's common stock during the Class Period and seeks damages,
costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by the
court.
On September 29, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint. On November 13, 2017, the
plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On December 4, 2017,
the defendants filed a reply brief. The motion remains pending
and oral argument has yet to be scheduled.
The Company said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses
and we intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. It is possible
that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other
courts that name the same or additional defendants."
Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., a commercial-stage pharmaceutical
company, discovers, develops, and commercializes various anti-
infectives for the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases in
North America. The Company was formerly known as formerly Rib-X
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to Melinta
Therapeutics, Inc. in October 2013. It was founded in 2000 and
is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut.
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Amended Complaint Filed in "Forman" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meridian Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the essential elements of the amended
complaint filed on April 16, 2018 in the "Forman" class action
suit are "the same."
On November 15, 2017, Barbara Forman filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio naming Meridian, its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer (in their capacities as such) as
defendants. An amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2018 and
the Company believes the essential elements of the amended
complaint are the same. The complaint and the amended complaint
are hereafter referred to as the "Complaint".
The Complaint alleges that Meridian made false and misleading
representations concerning certain of Magellan's lead test
systems at or around the time of Meridian's acquisition of
Magellan and subsequent thereto. The Complaint seeks
compensatory damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees to
all members of the proposed class.
The Company further stated, "Because the litigation and related
discovery are in preliminary stages, we do not have sufficient
information to determine or predict the ultimate outcome or
estimate the range of possible losses, if any. Accordingly, no
provision for litigation losses has been included within the
accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for
the fiscal year-to-date period ended March 31, 2018."
Meridian is a fully-integrated life science company with
principal businesses in (i) the development, manufacture, sale
and distribution of diagnostic test kits, primarily for certain
gastrointestinal, viral, respiratory, and parasitic infectious
diseases, and elevated blood lead levels; and (ii) the
manufacture and distribution of bulk antigens, antibodies,
PCR/qPCR reagents, nucleotides, competent cells, and bioresearch
reagents used by researchers and other diagnostic manufacturers.
The Company was incorporated in Ohio in 1976. The company's
principal corporate offices are located near Cincinnati, Ohio,
USA.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends "Owens" Class Suit in N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself in
the case captioned Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014), according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of all
persons for whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company established
a Total Control Accounts ("TCA"), to pay death benefits under an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan.
The action alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use
of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits
under some group life insurance policies violates Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As
damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company realized on accounts owned by
members of the class. In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a
subgroup of the class, seeks interest under Georgia's delayed
settlement interest statute, alleging that the use of the TCA as
the settlement option did not constitute payment. On September
27, 2016, the court denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial
summary judgment motion. On September 29, 2017, the court
certified a nationwide class. The court also certified a Georgia
subclass. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a
provider of insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset
management. It is organized into two segments: U.S. and MetLife
Holdings. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
SUN LIFE: Class Suits over Sales Practices Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Class suits filed against Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
related to sales practices remain ongoing, according to
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.
In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto,
seeking a declaration that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain
individual life insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company that were subsequently transferred to Sun Life.
In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found
that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary
judgment. Both parties agreed to consider the indemnity claim
through arbitration.
In September 2010, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Sun Life in Toronto alleging sales practices claims regarding the
policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and
transferred to Sun Life.
On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company that another purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC alleging sales practices claims
regarding certain of the same policies sold by Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life.
Sun Life contends that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is
obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in
these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are
ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a
provider of insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset
management. It is organized into two segments: U.S. and MetLife
Holdings. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
MATT & MEERA: Faces "Yonten" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matt & Meera LLC.
The case is styled as Karma Yonten, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Matt & Meera LLC, doing
business as: Mat & Meera, Yesh Hospitality LLC, doing business
as: Matt & Meera, Prafur Nikam and John Lopez, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-09138 (D. N.J., May 11, 2018).
Matt & Meera LLC is a Indian Restaurant in Washington St,
Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
MDL 2741: "Abedeljalil" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on March 29, 2018 styled Faisal
Abedeljalil and Tammy Abedeljalil, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company and John Does 1-50,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00481, was transferred on April 18, 2018, from
the District of Missouri Eastern to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02332-VC to the proceeding.
The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.
The Plaintiffs asserts product liability claims.
Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Davis Holland, Esq.
HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER AND STOLZE
300 North Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 241-8111
Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
E-mail: eholland@allfela.com
MDL 2741: "Andriola" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on March 29, 2018 entitled Guy
Andriola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-00471 was transferred on
April 18, 2018 from the District of Missouri Eastern to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02331-VC to the
proceeding.
The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.
The Plaintiffs asserts product liability claims.
Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C.
One Metropolitan Square
211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MDL 2741: "Bolyard" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on March 28, 2018 captioned Betty
L. Bolyard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-00469 was
transferred on April 18, 2018 from the District of Missouri
Eastern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-
02331-VC to the proceeding.
The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.
The Plaintiffs asserts product liability claims.
Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C.
One Metropolitan Square
211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MDL 2741: "Robbins" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on March 29, 2018 entitled Larry
Robbins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-00470 was transferred on
April 18, 2018 from the District of Missouri Eastern to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02330-VC to the
proceeding.
The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in
the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.
The Plaintiffs asserts product liability claims.
Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C.
One Metropolitan Square
211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MDL 2827: "Cook" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on December 27, 2017 captioned
Thomas T. Cook, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Apple Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:17-cv-02579 was transferred on April 17, 2018, from the
District of California Southern to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02305-EJD to the proceeding.
The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation MDL No.
2827. According to an order entered by the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the
actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are
common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern
District of California and assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila.
The lead case is 5:18-md-02827-EJD.
The case is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated who purchased or otherwise owned an iPhone 6
smartphone or other older model iPhone manufactured and sold by
Apple, who began to experience significant slowdown and
performance issues with their phones when Apple updated the
operating software of the phones to iOS 10.2.1 earlier this year.
Apple Inc. owns and operates a multinational technology company
located at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95104. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phong L. Tran, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
E-mail: phongt@johnsonfistel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Theodore Joseph Boutrous Jr., Esq.
Timothy William Loose, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7804
Facsimile: (213) 229-6804
E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
tloose@gibsondunn.com
MDL 2827: "Abdulla" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed December 21, 2017 styled Ala
Abdulla, Lance A. Raphael, Sam Mangano, Kirk Pedelty, and Ryan
Glaze, on behalf of themselves, and various classes of similarly
situated individuals v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-09178 was
transferred from the District of Illinois Northern to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02318-EJD to the
proceeding.
The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation MDL No.
2827. According to an order entered by the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the
actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are
common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern
District of California and assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila.
The lead case is 5:18-md-02827-EJD.
The case is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated who purchased or otherwise owned an iPhone 6
smartphone or other older model iPhone manufactured and sold by
Apple, who began to experience significant slowdown and
performance issues with their phones when Apple updated the
operating software of the phones to iOS 10.2.1 earlier this year.
Apple Inc. owns and operates a multinational technology company
located at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95104. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8181
E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David C. Scott, Esq.
SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY
CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION
1200 Third Ave., Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 533-5800
Facsimile: (619) 533-5856
E-mail: DCScott@sandiego.gov
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over "Fake Recalls"
---------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that Mercedes-Benz
was hit with a class action in California federal court on
April 30 that accuses the auto giant of instituting "fake
recalls" for dangerous problems it then won't fix in a timely
fashion.
Named plaintiff Michael Oppenheim, represented by celebrity
lawyer Mark Geragos, says the carmaker committed fraud by
announcing a recall linked to electrical issues in steering
wheels but allegedly dragging its heels on fixes.
The case is styled Michael Oppenheim v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03610 (C.D. Calif.). The case is assigned to
Judge R. Gary Klausner. The case was filed April 30, 2018.
[GN]
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends "Voshall" Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company still defends itself against
the class action lawsuit captioned Voshall v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group
disability income insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company to public entities in California between April
8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company improperly reduced benefits by including
cost of living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the
employer retirement benefits and other income that reduces the
benefit payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of
action for declaratory relief, violation of the California
Business & Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a
provider of insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset
management. It is organized into two segments: U.S. and MetLife
Holdings. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal from Nixed "Martin" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissed putative class action
lawsuit styled Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra
Costa, filed December 17, 2015) is still pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in life
insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last
four years. Plaintiffs allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging
compound interest on life insurance policy and premium loans
without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this
constitutes an unlawful business practice under California law.
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law,
and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an
unspecified amount. On April 12, 2016, the court granted
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company intends to defend
this action vigorously.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a
provider of insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset
management. It is organized into two segments: U.S. and MetLife
Holdings. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: 7th Cir. Says Claim Survived Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that in the case captioned
Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed
March 23, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit has issued an amended opinion holding that plaintiff's
claim survived Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to
dismiss but finding that the policy is ambiguous as to
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's right to raise plaintiff's
premiums.
Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
based on Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's class-wide
increase in premiums charged for long-term care insurance
policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of herself and
all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65
payment feature and whose premium rates were increased after age
65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be increased for
these class members and/or that marketing material was misleading
as to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's right to increase
premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive
relief.
On April 12, 2017, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion, dismissing the action with prejudice.
Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and on February 6, 2018, the
Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings,
ruling that Plaintiff is entitled to relief on her contract
claim. Following Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's petition
for rehearing, the Seventh Circuit issued an amended opinion on
March 22, 2018, holding that plaintiff's claim survived
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss but
finding that the policy is ambiguous as to Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's right to raise plaintiff's premiums. The
Seventh Circuit held that on remand to the district court, the
parties may introduce evidence to try to resolve this ambiguity.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a
provider of insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset
management. It is organized into two segments: U.S. and MetLife
Holdings. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Refiled Smoker Rates Complaint in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against a refiled complaint pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York related to the alleged
charging of smoker rates for certain non-smokers, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.
The original lawsuit was styled, Miller, et al. v. MetLife, Inc.,
et al. (C.D. Cal., filed April 7, 2017). Plaintiffs filed this
putative class action against MetLife, Inc. and Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, purporting to assert claims on behalf of
all persons who replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or
Group Universal Life policy with a Group Variable Universal Life
policy wherein MetLife allegedly charged smoker rates for certain
non-smokers. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, as well as other relief.
On September 25, 2017, plaintiffs dismissed the action and
refiled the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. On November 9, 2017, plaintiffs dismissed
MetLife, Inc. without prejudice from the action. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company intends to defend this action vigorously.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a
provider of insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset
management. It is organized into two segments: U.S. and MetLife
Holdings. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suit by LTD Claims Specialists
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself in
a collective action related to current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
The case is Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9, 2017). Plaintiffs filed
this putative class and collective action on behalf of themselves
and all current and former long-term disability ("LTD") claims
specialists between February 2011 and the present for alleged
wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The
suit alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company improperly
reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims
specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in
November 2013. As a result, they and members of the putative
class were no longer eligible for overtime pay even though they
allege they continued to work more than 40 hours per week. On
March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for the Company from February 8, 2014 to
the present. The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a
provider of insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset
management. It is organized into two segments: U.S. and MetLife
Holdings. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends Suits on Sales Practices Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that it continues "to
defend vigorously" against claims related to alleged improper
marketing and sales.
The Company said, "Over the past several years, the Company has
faced numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging
improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance
policies, annuities, mutual funds, other products or the misuse
of client assets. Some of the current cases seek substantial
damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys'
fees. The Company continues to defend vigorously against the
claims in these matters. The Company believes adequate provision
has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all
probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices
matters."
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a
provider of insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset
management. It is organized into two segments: U.S. and MetLife
Holdings. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.
MUNICIPALITY OF PEARL: Faces "McCright" Suit in S.D. Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Municipality of
Pearl, Mississippi. The case is styled as Regina Nell McCright,
Craig Gardner, Cynthia Gardner, Kimberly Tyner, Stacey Hallman,
A.B.B., S.B.B., T.S.B., S.F.G., A.S.G., T.R.T., H.H. by and
through his next Friend, Regina Nell McCright, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. The Municipality of Pearl, Mississippi and John Does 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00306-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss., May 11,
2018).
Pearl is a city in Rankin County, Mississippi located on the east
side of the Pearl River from the state capital of Jackson. The
population was 25,092 at the 2010 census. It is part of the
Jackson Metropolitan Statistical Area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Raymond Reeves, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN R. REEVES
355 South State Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Tel: (601) 355-9600
Fax: (601) 355-7080
Email: john@johnrreeves.com
- and -
Kelly G. Williams, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF KELLY G. WILLIAMS, PLLC
745 Avignon Drive, Suite C
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Tel: (601) 982-1111
Fax: (480) 772-4808
Email: kelly@kellywilliamslaw.com
MURPHY OIL: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Arbitration Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Kriston Capps, writing for Citylab, reports that when Gretchen
Carlson, the former host of "Fox & Friends," accused Fox News CEO
Roger Ailes of sexual harassment, she wasn't legally able to sue
Fox News. A mandatory arbitration clause that she signed in her
contract with the company prohibited her from taking her employer
to court. The agreement required her to negotiate her complaint
in confidential proceedings. So instead she sued Ailes
personally -- for $20 million.
Of all the hidden legal craft tucked into the fine print today,
forced arbitration agreements may do the greatest harm to the
largest number of Americans. These binding clauses, buried deep
in the arcana of terms-of-service documents and employment
contracts, lock millions of workers and consumers out of the
courtroom.
From Wells Fargo and Amazon to Olive Garden and Applebee's,
corporations with vast resources especially favor arbitration
clauses that force a signatory to surrender their right to join a
class action. A forthcoming decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
may decide how far companies can run with these class-action
waivers.
But if the court declines to put limits on runaway arbitration
clauses, a legal theory being tested by legislators in
Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and Oregon may provide some
relief to workers and consumers going forward.
More than 60 million employees in the U.S. have signed mandatory
arbitration agreements. According to a study by the Economic
Policy Institute, one-third of these affected workers have also
signed class action waivers -- meaning that not only can they not
bring a suit against their employers on their own behalf, they
also may not join a class action as part of an aggrieved group.
More common in low-wage workplaces, mandatory arbitration clauses
and class action waivers have a disproportionately adverse impact
on women and minority employees.
As these clauses continue to withstand court scrutiny, their use
is spreading. Forced arbitration got its start with credit card
issuers, banks, and telecoms; today, many startups and smaller
companies have adopted the practice. Even local bodegas in New
York have begun dropping forced arbitration agreements into
employee contracts, as CityLab reported last year.
"We are beginning to see these [forced arbitration clauses] in
medical agreements, waiving the right to bring a malpractice
claim," says Myriam Gilles, vice dean and law professor at the
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. "We're going to start to see
these on ordinary consumer goods. And possibly someday, when you
open your prescription drug, in the insert that nobody reads,
there will be an arbitration clause barring you from bringing a
case against Merck or Pfizer."
But wait -- can they really do that? Class action suits, after
all, lie behind some of the biggest consumer- and worker-rights
decisions in recent history. Last year, for example, Wells Fargo
agreed to pay $142 million to settle class action lawsuits over
the 3.5 million fake bank accounts and credit cards the lender
opened in consumers' names. Wells Fargo tried its damnedest to
block any suits through forced arbitration; only sheer public
outrage succeeded in forcing the bank to settle. From overtime
wage protections to consumer safety protocols, class action suits
are responsible for a wide range of benefits enjoyed by all
workers and consumers. Corporate waivers change that, helping
powerful companies such as Wells Fargo keep such scandals from
ever seeing the light of day.
Within the next few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide whether
class action waivers are enforceable as they apply specifically
to job contracts. The Supreme Court's ruling in National Labor
Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (and two other
consolidated cases), expected any day now, will pit two federal
laws against one another.
On the one side is the Federal Arbitration Act, which establishes
federal enforcement of employers' arbitration agreements. On the
other is the National Labor Relations Act, which protects
workers' right to bring class actions. Lawyers for the Obama
administration filed a brief on behalf of the National Labor
Relations Board, but the Trump administration took the opposite
tack. Justice Stephen G. Breyer said a decision for employers
could cut out "the entire heart of the New Deal."
There's a lot at stake in the next decision, in other words, and
the precedent doesn't look great for labor. In the context of
consumer agreements, the court has decided that states may not
interfere with the Federal Arbitration Act, neither by judgment
nor law. When a West Virginia state court ruled in 2012 that
nursing homes could not enforce mandatory arbitration clauses in
cases of negligence that led to wrongful death, the Supreme Court
struck down the decision with an exquisitely brief and unanimous
per curiam ruling.
A narrow reading by the Court that favors employers might simply
clarify federal labor law. But a broad reading on their behalf
could limit the reach of a future administration to regulate
forced arbitration through agency rule-making. (The Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau issued a rule banning class action
waivers in July 2017; Congress rolled back that action four
months later.)
If the Court sides broadly with employers in NLRB v. Murphy Oil,
the Economic Policy Institute's Alexander J.S. Colvin warns,
"this will signal to businesses that the last potential barrier
to their ability to opt out of class actions has been removed."
The issue has earned new visibility in light of forced
arbitration agreements restricting would-be plaintiffs in high-
profile sexual harassment cases. Susan Fowler, the engineer who
detailed the sexual harassment she says she suffered working for
Uber, became a whistleblower after she realized she had signed
away her right to take her former employer to court. Ms. Fowler
is now backing a state bill that would bar forced arbitration in
cases involving discrimination in California. In an op-ed for
The New York Times, she noted the intersection of #MeToo and
corporate law reform. "Forcing legal disputes about
discrimination, harassment and retaliation to go through secret
arbitration proceedings hides the behavior and allows it to
become culturally entrenched," Ms. Fowler writes.
There's another bill pending in Congress, the Ending Forced
Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act of 2017, sponsored by New
York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Cheri Bustos
of Illinois, to do pretty much what the bill's title says -- but
with the full weight of federal law. If this legislation fails,
or if the Supreme Court knocks down the pending challenges to
forced arbitration, then aggrieved workers or consumers may need
to fall back on a legal alternative established by California.
The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), a California state law
passed in 2004, mapped out a different route for challenges
against corporate defendants. The bill enables injured employees
or consumers to bring forward an action on behalf of the state.
Shored up with new guidances in 2016, the law deputizes claimants
to "stand in the shoes of the attorney general," Ms. Gilles says,
which means they are seeking statutory fines, not personal
damages.
"That's what makes it a public enforcement claim brought
essentially by a private entity acting as a public enforcer,"
Ms. Gilles says. "The reason that completely avoids any
preemption argument: The [Federal Arbitration Act] doesn't even
come into play. The public enforcer is not a party to the
contract and therefore is not subject to the forced arbitration
clause."
Back in 2002, the Supreme Court heard a case that tested the role
of the public enforcer in arbitration disputes. In Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, the commission
brought an enforcement claim on behalf of an injured employee.
Waffle House argued that since the employee was subject to an
arbitration clause, the EEOC would have to arbitrate the claim.
In a unanimous 2002 decision, the Supreme Court said there was no
other way to dice it: The EEOC was not subject to that contract.
Supporters of laws such as California's PAGA bill say that EEOC
v. Waffle House is settled law that establishes the public
enforcer as an alternative to forced arbitration. In California,
states collect most of the fines in cases brought this way, which
is one drawback for claimants. But the greater benefit is still
preserved, especially in class actions that affect the public at
large -- the kind of cases that public enforcers are more likely
to take up.
"Basically, this is taking the private individual -- consumer or
employee -- out of that contract, and putting them as a deputy in
the AG's office or the labor commissioner's office, whoever the
public enforcer may be," Ms. Gilles says.
That's why several states are looking to pass their own private
attorneys general bills. New York's proposed Empowering People in
Rights Enforcement (EMPIRE) Worker Protection Act enables
employees to pursue wage theft and other labor claims on behalf
of the state. Legislators in Vermont, Connecticut, and Illinois
have proposed similar rules, in bills that are all pending before
state assemblies. Advocates in Oregon are drafting a bill that
they hope to see introduced in the fall.
But advocates for corporate interests are not about to take what
they consider to be a flimsy legal workaround sitting down. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a vocal critic of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and its recent effort to curb forced
arbitration, has backed a challenge against California's PAGA
bill. "Review is essential to prevent an end-run around this
Court's longstanding precedents upholding the strong federal
policy in favor of arbitration," the group's amicus filing reads.
California passed its original PAGA legislation in 2004, several
years before the Supreme Court affirmed that federal law trumps
state law when it comes to forced arbitration disputes (in AT&T
v. Concepcion, for those keeping score). At that time,
Ms. Gilles says, California's labor commissioner was overwhelmed
by the volume of workplace complaints pouring in and needed the
help of deputies.
Even if other states follow course with acts like California's,
it may not be enough to dam the flood of claims today. In an
environment in which corporations no longer face the legal threat
of class action suits, companies may push their interests further
than ever.
"I think what we're seeing is that public enforcers are very
worried that they simply can't bring all these claims. There are
just too many," Ms. Gilles says. "The truth is, because forced
arbitration suppresses claims, it makes defendants much bolder in
the things they try to do." [GN]
MYLAN NV: $89.2 Mil. Paid in Modafinil Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that it has paid a final amount of approximately
US$89.2 million to the putative direct purchaser class and the
retailer opt-out plaintiffs in antitrust lawsuits related to the
drug modafinil.
Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
were named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania ("EDPA") by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly
representing direct and indirect purchasers of the drug modafinil
and in a lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic
drugs. These actions alleged violations of federal antitrust and
state laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement
of patent litigation with Cephalon relating to modafinil. Mylan
entered into a settlement agreement with the putative indirect
purchasers for approximately US$16.0 million, which is subject to
court approval. Mylan has settled with the putative direct
purchaser class and the retailer opt-out plaintiffs for US$165
million, a portion of which was paid by the Company prior to
2018, and a final amount of approximately US$89.2 million was
paid in April 2018. Mylan and Apotex have also settled Apotex's
claims. The Company has also received subpoenas from certain
state attorneys general requesting documents related to the
modafinil patent litigation.
Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter products in a variety of dosage forms
and therapeutic categories.
MYLAN NV: Court Narrows Claims in Federal Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in a federal securities litigation has been
granted in part (including the dismissal of claims arising under
Israeli securities laws) and denied in part.
Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016
against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc. and certain of their current and
former directors and officers (the "defendants") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. and/or
Mylan Inc. on the NASDAQ. The complaints alleged that defendants
made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly
material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in
connection with disclosures relating to Mylan N.V. and Mylan
Inc.'s classification of their EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector as a non-
innovator drug for purposes of the MDRP. The complaints sought
damages, as well as the plaintiffs' fees and costs.
On March 20, 2017, after the actions were consolidated, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed, alleging substantially
similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief, but
adding allegations that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in
connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both federal securities laws (on behalf of a
purported class of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V.
and/or Mylan Inc. on the NASDAQ) and Israeli securities laws (on
behalf of a purported class of certain purchasers of securities
of Mylan N.V. on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange).
On March 28, 2018, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint was granted in part (including the dismissal of
claims arising under Israeli securities laws) and denied in part.
The Company said, "We believe that the surviving claims in this
lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously."
Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter products in a variety of dosage forms
and therapeutic categories.
MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Lawsuit Dismissed, Another Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that the Tel Aviv District Court has granted the motion
filed by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC Fund
Action, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying
the IEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the securities
litigation pending in the United States.
On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed
a lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its
directors and officers (the "defendants") in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division) (the "Friedman Action"). The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan
N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan
N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes
of the MDRP, in violation of both U.S. and Israeli securities
laws, the Israeli Companies Law and the Israeli Torts Ordinance.
The plaintiff seeks damages, among other remedies. On January
19, 2017, the Court stayed the Friedman Action until a final
judgment is issued in the securities litigation currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V.
filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V.
shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially
similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief against
the defendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V.,
but alleging also that this group of defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact
in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect
to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and
alleging violations of both U.S. federal securities laws and
Israeli law (the "IEC Fund Action").
On April 10, 2018, the Tel Aviv District Court granted the motion
filed by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC Fund
Action, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying
the IEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the securities
litigation pending in the United States.
The Company states, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."
Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter products in a variety of dosage forms
and therapeutic categories.
MYLAN NV: July 2020 Trial Scheduled for EpiPen(R) Civil Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Civil Litigation has
been scheduled for July 2020, according to Mylan N.V.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities have been
named as defendants in 15 putative class actions relating to the
pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector. The
plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law
claims. Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the
prices charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the
marketing of the product in packages containing two auto-
injectors, as well as allegedly anti-competitive conduct. A
Mylan officer and other non-Mylan affiliated companies were also
named as defendants in some of the class actions. These lawsuits
were filed in the various federal and state courts and have
either been dismissed or transferred into a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas and have been consolidated. Mylan filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which is currently
pending. A trial date has been scheduled for July 2020.
The Company states, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."
Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter products in a variety of dosage forms
and therapeutic categories.
MYLAN NV: Still Defends Antitrust Lawsuits over Various Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. continues to defend itself against civil lawsuits over
antitrust matters related to various products, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
On March 2, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA) by
indirect purchasers against Mylan and several other
manufacturers, generally alleging anticompetitive conduct with
respect to certain generic doxycycline and digoxin products. The
complaint alleged harm under federal antitrust laws, state
antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws and theories of
unjust enrichment. Subsequently, additional cases were filed by
putative classes of indirect purchasers, direct purchasers and an
indirect reseller. These cases were consolidated in a MDL
proceeding in the EDPA.
Similar lawsuits were filed by direct and indirect purchasers in
various U.S. district courts, involving Mylan's and other
manufacturer's pravastatin, divalproex, levothyroxine,
propranolol, clomipramine, albuterol, benazepril and
amitriptyline products (as well as non-Mylan products clobatesol,
desonide, fluocinonide, econazole, lidocaine/prilocaine,
glyburide, ursodiol and baclofen). All of the lawsuits have also
been consolidated in the MDL proceeding in the EDPA.
Putative classes of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers, and
indirect resellers filed consolidated complaints with respect to
the products on August 15, 2017. Mylan is no longer a named
defendant in the pravastatin lawsuits. The Court has sequenced
the complaints into three separate product groups. Defendants'
filed motions to dismiss complaints in the first product group
and decisions are pending.
On January 22, 2018, three direct purchaser retailers filed a
complaint against Mylan and other manufacturers asserting similar
allegations with respect to the products identified above, as
well as doxycycline monohydrate, glipizide-metformin, and
verapamil.
Mylan said, "The Company believes that the claims in these
lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend against them
vigorously."
Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
name and over-the-counter products in a variety of dosage forms
and therapeutic categories.
NANTHEALTH INC: Aug. 2019 Trial Date Set for "Deora" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in the consolidated "Deora" class suit,
according to NantHealth, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018. A trial date has been set for August 2019.
The Company stated, "In March 2017, a number of putative class
action securities complaints were filed in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, naming as defendants the
Company and certain of our current or former executive officers
and directors. These complaints have been consolidated with the
lead case captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. In
June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated
federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations in
NantHealth's IPO registration statement and in subsequent public
statements. In particular, the complaint refers to various
third-party articles in alleging that defendants misrepresented
NantHealth's business with the University of Utah, donations to
the university by non-profit entities associated with our founder
Dr. Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer. The lead plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased or acquired NantHealth
securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1, 2016
through May 1, 2017. In March 2018, the court largely denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
A trial date has been set for August 2019. The Company believes
that the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the
litigation."
NantHealth is a next-generation, evidence-based, personalized
healthcare company focused on enabling its clients to
fundamentally change the diagnosis, treatment and
pharmacoeconomics of cancer and other critical illnesses. The
company is based in Culver City, California.
NANTHEALTH INC: Retirement Fund Lawsuit in Calif. Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action filed by a retirement fund against
NantHealth, Inc. remains stayed, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018
In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims
for violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar
to those in the case captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-
cv-01825. This case is captioned Bucks County Employees
Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330. The parties
agreed to a stay of the case pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss in the federal Deora case.
NantHealth said, "The Company believes that the claims lack merit
and intends to vigorously defend the litigation."
In March 2018, the court in the Deora case largely denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
A trial date for the Deora case has been set for August 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report
regarding the retirement fund's lawsuit.
NantHealth is a leading next-generation, evidence-based,
personalized healthcare company focused on enabling its clients
to fundamentally change the diagnosis, treatment and
pharmacoeconomics of cancer and other critical illnesses. The
company is based in Culver City, California.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Jordan" Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------
The class suit captioned Laura Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar
Mortgage LLC remains pending, according to Nationstar Mortgage
Holdings Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.
The Company said, "We are a defendant in a class action
proceeding originally filed in state court in March 2012, and
then removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington under the caption Laura Zamora Jordan v.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC. The suit was filed on behalf of a class
of Washington borrowers and challenges property preservation
measures we took, as loan servicer, after the borrowers defaulted
and our vendors determined that the borrowers had vacated or
abandoned their properties. The case raises claims for (i)
common law trespass, (ii) statutory trespass, and (iii) violation
of Washington's Consumer Protection Act, and seeks recovery of
actual, statutory, and treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees
and litigation costs.
"While we are attempting to resolve these matters, certain
differences have arisen between the parties in the negotiation of
a settlement agreement, and while it is reasonably possible that
we may settle, there can be no assurance that the parties will
agree on the terms of the settlement. However, if we ultimately
settle, we intend to seek reimbursement of the settlement payment
from the owners of the loans we serviced, but there can be no
assurance that we would prevail with any claims for
reimbursement."
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, earns fees through the
delivery of servicing, origination and transaction based services
related primarily to single-family residences throughout the
United States.
NEW YORK TIMES: Freelancers Set to Get Settlement Payout
--------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Peisera, writing for The New York Times, reports that
seventeen years after nearly 3,000 freelance journalists filed a
class-action lawsuit claiming copyright infringement by some of
the country's biggest publishers, the checks are finally in the
mail.
The 2,500 writers who made it through the tortuous legal process
will start receiving their pieces of a settlement totaling $9
million.
"We've been at the finish line for this lawsuit for a very long
time, and so it is great that it's finally happening," said the
writer James Gleick, the president of the Authors Guild and one
of the named plaintiffs in the case. "But it's also certainly a
victory tinged with bitterness, because 17 years doesn't make
sense."
The Authors Guild filed the suit -- along with the American
Society of Journalists and Authors, the National Writers Union
and 21 freelance writers named as class representatives -- in
2001 after publishers licensed articles by freelancers to the
electronic database Lexis/Nexis and other digital indexers
without getting the writers' approval. The publishers include
The New York Times, Dow Jones, and Knight Ridder, as well as Reed
Elsevier, the provider of Lexis/Nexis.
"For the Authors Guild, this is our bread and butter -- to make
sure the authors and journalists get paid," said
Mary Rasenberger, the executive director of the Authors Guild.
"We're small but we do punch above our weight."
The suit came about shortly after the journalist Jonathan Tasini
and five co-plaintiffs won a similar case in the Supreme Court.
"The argument that we made was the writers got paid for one-time
use," said Mr. Gleick, who worked as a reporter and editor for
The Times for 10 years. "We sued The Times because they sold
copyrighted work by not just their staff, but also freelance
writers. And the correct thing to do would have been to ask the
freelance writers for permission and then pay the writers."
The parties had seemingly come to an agreement in 2005, but
negotiations stalled, over disagreement of how to handle
plaintiffs who had not registered copyrights for their work,
until a Supreme Court ruling, in 2010, held that the settlement
proceedings could continue. The groups reached what seemed to be
a final agreement in 2014, only to endure four more years of
delays caused by 41,000 objections from the defendants and
specific claims by the authors.
"There were very prolific freelance writers who made a living
writing for many publications and were fighting for every dollar
they got," Mr. Gleick said. "This lawsuit was very bitter at
times. But it really was unfair and it's good that they are
getting some money back."
The writers will start receiving checks. Each plaintiff's payout
will vary depending on how many pieces he or she published and
when they appeared in print. A few will be paid in the six
figures, according to the Authors Guild. The settlement also
allows for additional reimbursements of nearly $4 million in
attorney fees and close to $900,000 in administrative expenses.
Despite the 17-year wait, the freelancers who were part of the
lawsuit may consider themselves lucky. Since the case went to
court, it has become common practice for publishers to own the
digital rights of the articles they publish.
"We can see in hindsight that this early battle contained hints
of things to come," Mr. Gleick said in a statement. "Then, as
now, big tech companies had the idea that they could profit from
new uses of creative work without including the creators. We
scored a victory, but the effects weren't long lasting, and
writers continue to struggle."
The New York Times declined to comment on the settlement.
Mr. Gleick said the checks may come as a surprise to some
plaintiffs, adding, "Some people are going to be very happy."
[GN]
NUSTAR GP: Faces "Bessette" Suit Over Proposed Merger Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas M. Bessette, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nustar GP Holdings, LLC, William E. Greehey, Bradley
C. Barron, William B. Burnett James F. Clingman, Jr., and Jelynne
Leblanc-Burley, Case No. 1:18-cv-00576-UNA (D. Del., April 17,
2018), is brought on behalf of all unit holders of NuStar GP
Holdings, LLC, to enjoin the definitive merger agreement of
Nustar GP Holdings, LLC with NuStar Energy, L.P., Riverwalk
Logistics, L.P., NuStar GP, LLC, Marshall Merger Sub, LLC, and
Riverwalk Holdings, LLC at approximately $108,766,656 based on
the closing price of Partnership common units.
According to the complaint, Nustar filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that Nustar stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the Statement is incomplete and contains
materially misleading information regarding the process leading
to the execution of the Merger Agreement, the financial analyses
conducted by Robert W. Baird & Co., financial advisor to the NSH
Conflicts Committee, and the projections used by Baird in those
analyses, says the complaint. The failure to adequately disclose
such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange
Act as stockholders need such information in order to cast a
fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully
divest Nustar's public stockholders of the Company's valuable
assets without fully disclosing all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To
remedy the Defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks
to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless
and until such problems are remedied.
The Defendants are engaged in the transportation of petroleum
products and anhydrous ammonia, the terminalling and storage of
petroleum products, and the marketing of petroleum products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 10th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
Christopher R. Tillotson, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
206 Covington Street
Madisonville, LA 70447
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com
Christopher.tillotson@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Tucker, writing for Law.com, reports that a Florida
federal judge granted Ocwen Financial Corp.'s motion to dismiss a
securities fraud suit claiming issues with a mortgage-servicing
program caused stock prices to plunge.
Named plaintiff Karen Carvelli filed the putative class action in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida a year
ago on behalf of investors. After hearing oral arguments, Judge
Robin Rosenberg in West Palm Beach on April 30 dismissed the suit
with prejudice, saying the plaintiffs failed to make out a claim.
She ruled that bolstering the complaint "would not cure the
infirmities," and that the plaintiffs, including the University
of Puerto Rico Retirement System, have had "adequate opportunity
to amend" their pleadings.
The complaint alleged that investors "suffered a string of bad
news" about problems with a mortgage-servicing software platform
furnished by Altisource Portfolio Solutions called REALServicing.
The plaintiffs alleged that Ocwen "failed to fix operational and
technological deficiencies with REALServicing, and instead made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions," the
judge wrote. The plaintiffs alleged that Ocwen misrepresented its
progress in complying with requirements made by regulators as
well as in straightening out problems with its servicing
software.
The investors alleged those missteps caused stock prices to
plummet from a high of $11.61 per share to $2.49 per share -- a
decline of nearly 80 percent.
The potential damages, the action claimed, were estimated to be
more than $600 million, according to a news release on May 1 from
Ocwen's legal team at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel.
"We are very pleased that the court agreed with the core premise
of our motion, namely, that none of the Ocwen public statements
challenged by the plaintiff violated the nation's securities
laws," Kramer Levin partner John "Sean" Coffey --
scoffey@kramerlevin.com -- said in the news release.
In addition to Mr. Coffey, the winning defense team includes
Jonathan Wagner -- jwagner@kramerlevin.com -- and Jason Moff with
associates Adina Levine -- alevine@kramerlevin.com -- and Sara
Lefkovitz -- slefkovitz@kramerlevin.com -- The team was assisted
by co-counsel Jeffrey Allan Hirsch -- hirschj@gtlaw.com -- of the
Fort Lauderdale office of Greenberg Traurig.
Plaintiff counsel includes J. Alexander Hood II and Patrick V.
Dahlstrom of Pomerantz in New York, and Jayne Arnold Goldstein of
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah in Fort Lauderdale. They
declined to comment on the decision.
The case is Carvelli v. Ocwen Financial, No. 9:17-cv-80500-RLR.
[GN]
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on a motion to dismiss an amended complaint, if any, in
the purported securities class action against Omega Healthcare
Investors, Inc. is scheduled to be completed by September 14,
2018, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.
On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors,
Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J.
Booth was filed against the Company and certain of its officers
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Case No. 1:17-cv-08983-NRB (the "Gronich Securities
Class Action"). On November 17, 2017, a second purported
securities class action complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega
Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O.
Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed against the Company and
the same officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB
(together with the Gronich Class Action, the "Securities Class
Action"). Both lawsuits purport to be class actions brought on
behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities
between February 8, 2017 and October 31, 2017.
The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), by making materially false and/or misleading statements,
and by failing to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, including
regarding the financial and operating results of certain of the
Company's operators, the ability of certain operators to make
timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the
Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain receivables.
The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest,
fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.
On January 16, 2018, four plaintiffs and one group of plaintiffs
acting jointly filed motions for consolidation of the lawsuits in
the Securities Class Action, appointment of counsel, and
appointment of lead plaintiff. They are: (i) The Hannah Rosa
Trust; (ii) Patricia Zaborowski, Hong Jun, Cynthia Peterson,
Simona Vacchieri, and Glenn Fausz (self-defined as the "Omega
Investor Group"); (iii) Royce Setzer; (iv) Carpenters Pension
Fund of Illinois; and (v) Glenn Fausz. The Omega Investor Group
and The Hannah Rosa Trust thereafter withdrew their applications.
The Court has designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff and
entered a scheduling order under which he must file an amended
consolidated complaint by May 25, 2018. Briefing on a motion to
dismiss that complaint is to be completed by September 14, 2018.
The Company said, "Although the Company denies the material
allegations of the Securities Class Action and intends to
vigorously pursue its defense, we are in the very early stages of
this litigation and are unable to predict the outcome of the case
or to estimate the amount of potential costs."
The Company's Board of Directors received a demand letter, dated
April 9, 2018, from an attorney for a purported current
shareholder of the Company relating to the subject matter covered
by the Securities Class Action (the "Shareholder Demand"). The
letter demanded that the Board of Directors conduct an
investigation into the statements and other matters at issue in
the Securities Class Action and commence legal proceedings
against each party identified as being responsible for the
alleged activities. The Board of Directors is reviewing the
Shareholder Demand to determine the appropriate course of action.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. was formed as a real estate
investment trust and incorporated in the State of Maryland on
March 31, 1992. Omega is structured as an umbrella partnership
REIT under which all of Omega's assets are owned directly or
indirectly by, and all of Omega's operations are conducted
directly or indirectly through its operating partnership
subsidiary, OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership.
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Court Stays "Nallagonda" Class Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The "Nallagonda" putative class action lawsuit filed in Maryland
against Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., among other defendants,
remains stayed until the parties submit a notice of dismissal,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018. On March 11, 2018, the Company entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle the lawsuit for a total
payment of US$18.5 million in cash.
On November 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
by a single plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, against the Company and three current
or former executive officers of the Company. An amended
complaint clarifying plaintiff's claims was filed on April 6,
2018. The action, captioned Kiran Kumar Nallagonda v. Osiris
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case 1:15-cv-03562 (the "Nallagonda
Action"), alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false or misleading statements and material omissions
in the Company's filings with the SEC in violation of the federal
securities laws. The complaint seeks certification as a class
action, unspecified damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees.
On March 21, 2016, the court entered an order appointing Dr.
Raffy Mirzayan as lead plaintiff and the firm of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP as lead counsel.
On March 11, 2018, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the Nallagonda Action. A memorandum of
understanding is not a definitive settlement agreement. By the
terms of the memorandum, the Company agreed in principle to a
total payment of US$18.5 million in cash. On March 28, 2018, the
court entered an order instructing the parties to submit a notice
of dismissal by May 28, 2018 and staying the proceedings until
that time.
The Company recorded the US$18.5 million shareholder settlement
in Settlement of SEC and shareholders actions, net of the US$4.8
million estimated insurance recovery in the consolidated
statement of comprehensive income (loss) in 2015. The US$18.5
million shareholder settlement liability was recorded in Accrued
shareholder litigation in the Company's condensed consolidated
balance sheets as of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017.
The Company had a US$5.0 million executive and corporate
securities liability insurance policy in place at the time of the
allegations. The Company expects to recover the remaining US$4.8
million of unused policy coverage for the shareholder settlement
of the Nallagonda Action in 2018. The US$4.8 million insurance
recovery was recorded as an offset to the US$18.5 million
settlement in the Company's consolidated statement of
comprehensive income (loss) for the fourth quarter of 2015. The
US$4.8 million insurance receivable was recorded in Insurance
receivable in the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets
as of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017.
Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., together with its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Osiris Therapeutics International GmbH, researches,
develops, manufactures and commercializes regenerative medicine
products intended to improve the health and lives of patients and
lower overall healthcare costs. The company is based in Columbia,
Maryland.
PAPA MURPHY'S: Settlement Reached in "Lennartson" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a putative class action filed by John Lennartson
against Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. have entered into a
Settlement Agreement and Release, and the plaintiffs filed a
Motion and Memorandum for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with
the Court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 2, 2018.
The Company is named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 7, 2015, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to comply
with the requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") when it sent SMS text messages to consumers. Mr.
Lennartson asks that the court certify the putative class and
that statutory damages under the TCPA be awarded to plaintiff and
each class member.
On October 14, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC") granted the Company a limited waiver from the TCPA's
written consent requirements for certain text messages that it
sent up through October 16, 2013 to individuals who, like Mr.
Lennartson, provided written consent prior to October 16, 2013.
On October 20, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal.
On October 27, 2016, Mr. Lennartson filed a motion seeking to
extend the time to respond to the summary judgment motion on the
basis that he intends to appeal the FCC's waiver. On November 4,
2016, the Court granted Mr. Lennartson's motion to continue his
response to the Company's summary judgment motion until he could
complete his appeal of the FCC's waiver order.
In addition, on January 9, 2017, Mr. Lennartson filed an amended
complaint adding additional plaintiffs, some of whom provided
consent after October 16, 2013, and who are therefore differently
situated from Mr. Lennartson, as well as additional Washington
state law claims. On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved to
certify their putative class, which the Company opposed, and on
November 22, 2017, the Company moved for summary judgment on all
of plaintiffs' claims. The Court issued a stay of the case for
30 days while the parties pursued settlement negotiations.
On April 23, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release and plaintiffs filed a Motion and
Memorandum for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with the Court.
The Settlement Agreement, subject to necessary court approvals
and other conditions, will result in the final resolution of the
lawsuit; however, the Company provides no assurance that the
final settlement agreement will be approved by the Court, or that
the lawsuit will be finally resolved.
The Company has recorded a contingent liability of US$3.9 million
related to this lawsuit. An adverse judgment or settlement
related to this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. is a franchisor and operator of the
largest Take 'N' Bake pizza chain in the United States. The
company was founded in 1981 and is based in Vancouver,
Washington.
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Effexor XR Antitrust Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth LLC, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., and PF Prism C.V.
(collectively, Wyeth) continues to face legal proceedings related
to Effexor XR antitrust matters, according to Pfizer Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 1, 2018.
Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class
actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and,
in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other
defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release
formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class
actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in
the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly
purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR
or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14,
2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct
ceased.
The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch
of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the
actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other
laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently
obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR
in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and
entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic
drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the
plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual
actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class
actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008.
All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct
purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement
agreement but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser
plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered
partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims,
including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer
plaintiffs, which plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's
decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court.
Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation
headquartered in New York City, with its research headquarters in
Groton, Connecticut. Pfizer is considered one of the world's
largest pharmaceutical companies.
PFIZER INC: Antitrust Lawsuits over Lipitor Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against antitrust class
actions related to Lipitor, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2018.
Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among
others, Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the
actions, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of
Ranbaxy. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to
represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting
of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly
purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or,
in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the
defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period).
The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i)
the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled
certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted
Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various
markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the
actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents
for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things,
treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price
overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic
Lipitor) during the Class Period.
In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer,
Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that
assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are
substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief
sought in the purported class actions. These various actions
have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-
District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332)
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and
November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the
claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All
plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing
their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. In addition, the direct purchaser class
plaintiffs appealed the order denying their motion to amend the
judgment and for leave to amend their complaint to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's
decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court.
Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the
State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are
substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief
sought in the purported class actions.
Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation
headquartered in New York City, with its research headquarters in
Groton, Connecticut. Pfizer is considered one of the world's
largest pharmaceutical companies.
PFIZER INC: Ct. Okays $94MM Pact with Celebrex Direct Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has approved the agreement of Pfizer Inc. and the
direct purchasers to settle an antitrust class action related to
Celebrex for US$94 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2018.
Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against
Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex.
The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state
classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased
from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed
patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or
generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct.
The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in
violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer
fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on
Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation and prolonging the impact
of sham litigation through settlement activity that further
delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages
on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Celebrex since May 31, 2014. In December 2014, the District
Court granted the parties' joint motions to consolidate the
direct purchaser and end-payer cases, and all such cases were
consolidated as of March 2015.
The Company said, "In October 2014 and March 2015, we filed
motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended
complaints, respectively. In November 2015, the District Court
denied in part and granted in part our motion to dismiss the
direct purchasers' amended complaint. In February 2016, the
District Court denied in part and granted in part our motion to
dismiss the end-payers' amended complaint, and in August 2016,
the District Court dismissed substantially all of the end-payer's
remaining claims."
In February 2017, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all
of the end-payers' claims. In March 2017, the end-payers
appealed the District Court's order dismissing their claims with
prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
In August 2017, the District Court granted the direct purchasers'
motion for class certification.
In November 2017, Pfizer and the direct purchasers entered into
an agreement to resolve the direct purchasers' class action for
US$94 million. In April 2018, the court approved the agreement.
In November 2017, Pfizer and the end-payers entered into an
agreement to resolve the claims of the end-payer plaintiffs on
terms not material to Pfizer.
Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation
headquartered in New York City, with its research headquarters in
Groton, Connecticut. Pfizer is considered one of the world's
largest pharmaceutical companies.
PFIZER INC: Still Defends Suit on Intravenous Solutions
-------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1,
2018, that the litigation is the subject of cross-claims for
indemnification by both the Company and ICU Medical, Inc. under a
purchase agreement on February 3, 2017.
Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other
defendants relating to intravenous saline solution. Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities
in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution
sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time
the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases. Plaintiffs
allege that the defendants' conduct restricts output and
artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the
prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in
violation of federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of
the putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for
alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the
U.S. since January 1, 2013. All of these actions have been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
The Company said, "On February 3, 2017, we completed the sale of
our global infusion systems net assets, HIS, which includes
intravenous saline solution, to ICU Medical. The litigation is
the subject of cross-claims for indemnification by both Pfizer
and ICU Medical under the purchase agreement."
Separately, in April 2017, Pfizer, Hospira and two employees of
Pfizer received grand jury subpoenas issued by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in
connection with an investigation by the U.S. Department of
Justice, Antitrust Division. The subpoenas seek documents
related to the sale, manufacture, pricing and shortages of
intravenous solutions, including saline, as well as
communications among industry participants regarding these
issues. The Department of Justice investigation is also the
subject of cross-claims for indemnification by both Pfizer and
ICU Medical under the purchase agreement. In addition, in August
2015, the New York Attorney General issued a subpoena to Hospira
for similar information. Hospira has produced records to the New
York Attorney General and is coordinating with ICU Medical to
produce records to the New York Attorney General as appropriate
going forward, and Hospira and Pfizer are coordinating with ICU
Medical to produce records to the Department of Justice.
Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation
headquartered in New York City, with its research headquarters in
Groton, Connecticut. Pfizer is considered one of the world's
largest pharmaceutical companies.
PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth LLC, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., and PF Prism C.V.
(collectively, Wyeth) still defends itself against Hormone
Therapy Consumer Class Action, according to Pfizer Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 1, 2018.
A certified consumer class action is pending against Wyeth in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California based
on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone therapy
products. The case was originally filed in December 2003. The
class consists of California consumers who purchased Wyeth's
hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January
2003 and who do not seek personal injury damages therefrom. The
class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including a full
refund of the purchase price.
Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation
headquartered in New York City, with its research headquarters in
Groton, Connecticut. Pfizer is considered one of the world's
largest pharmaceutical companies.
PFIZER INC: Antitrust Class Actions over EpiPen Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against antitrust-related
class actions over EpiPen, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2018.
Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in
various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against
Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various
entities affiliated with Mylan N.V., and Mylan N.V. Chief
Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these
actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising
persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user
purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the cessation of
the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. In August 2017, a
similar lawsuit brought on behalf of a purported class of direct
purchaser plaintiffs against Pfizer, King, Meridian and Mylan was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs generally allege
that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of patent
litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic
EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state
antitrust or consumer protection laws. At least one lawsuit also
alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan N.V. violated the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiffs also filed various consumer protection and unjust
enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable
solely to, Mylan Pharmaceuticals regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs
seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since
2009.
In August 2017, the actions were consolidated for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re:
EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices
and Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785) in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions
against Mylan N.V. and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King
and Meridian are not parties.
Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation
headquartered in New York City, with its research headquarters in
Groton, Connecticut. Pfizer is considered one of the world's
largest pharmaceutical companies.
POPULAR INC: Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Lawsuit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) still
defends itself against the Hazard Insurance Commission-Related
Litigation.
Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular Insurance, LLC (the "Popular
Defendants") have been named defendants in a putative class
action complaint captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al,
filed before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part. The
complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief on behalf of the purported class against the Popular
Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-
PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance Companies").
Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly
enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or
mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against
their hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement
to the purported "class" of an estimated US$400 million plus
legal interest, for the "good experience" commissions allegedly
paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant
time period, as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the
Defendant Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the
insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees
directly to the insured.
A hearing on the request for preliminary injunction and other
matters was held on February 15, 2017, as a result of which
plaintiffs withdrew their request for preliminary injunctive
relief. A motion for dismissal on the merits, which the
Defendant Insurance Companies filed shortly before hearing, was
denied with a right to replead following limited targeted
discovery. On March 24, 2017, the Popular Defendants filed a
certiorari petition with the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals seeking
a review of the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss.
The Court of Appeals denied the Popular Defendant's request, and
the Popular Defendants appealed this determination to the Puerto
Rico Supreme Court, which declined review.
Separately, a class certification hearing was held in June and
the Court requested post-hearing briefs on this issue. On
October 26, 2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly
certified the class. At a hearing held on November 2, 2017, the
Court encouraged the parties to reach agreement on discovery and
class notification procedures. The Court further allowed
defendants until January 4, 2018 to answer the complaint. A
follow-up hearing was set for March 6, 2018.
On December 21, 2017, the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari
petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, which
plaintiffs opposed on January 9, 2018. On March 4, 2018, the
Court of Appeals declined to entertain the certiorari petition.
Plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint and defendants filed an
answer thereto. The case is now in its discovery stage.
Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.
In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized
subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates
Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and
resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates
branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name
of Popular Community Bank.
POPULAR INC: BPPR to Appeal Reinstatement of "Torres" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that Banco Popular de Puerto Rico "intends to
appeal" the Court of Appeals' determination, which reversed the
Court of First Instance's dismissal of the "Torres" class suit.
BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al, filed before the Puerto Rico Court of First
Instance, San Juan Part. The complaint seeks damages and
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the
purported class against Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular
Insurance, LLC (the "Popular Defendants"), as well as other
financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries in
Puerto Rico.
Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles
Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico
Insurance Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its
customers to obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible
for good experience, but that defendants failed to offer this
product or disclose its existence to their customers, favoring
other products instead, in violation of their duties as insurance
brokers. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants
unlawfully failed to comply with their duty to disclose the
existence of this new insurance product, as well as double or
treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that
defendants engaged in anti-monopolistic practices in failing to
offer this product).
Between late March and early April, co-defendants filed motions
to dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary
injunctive relief. A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint
against Antilles Insurance Company. A preliminary injunction and
class certification hearing originally scheduled for April 6th
was subsequently postponed, pending resolution of the motions to
dismiss.
On July 31, 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice. In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and
on March 21, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of
First Instance's dismissal.
On April 5, 2018, co-defendant Oriental Bank filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the Court denied on April 27th. Banco
Popular intends to appeal the Court of Appeals' determination.
Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.
In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized
subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates
Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and
resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates
branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name
of Popular Community Bank.
POPULAR INC: "Camacho" Plaintiffs Seek Review of Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of
the "Camacho" putative class action against Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico (BPPR) remains pending, according to Popular, Inc.'s
Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action
captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-
holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures
and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers.
Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced
loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in
parallel. Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home
Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home Affordable
Refinance Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored loan
modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor
Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). For the
alleged violations, Plaintiffs request that all Defendants (over
20, including all local banks), be held jointly and severally
liable in an amount no less than US$400 million. BPPR waived
service of process in June and filed a motion to dismiss in
August 2017, as did most co-defendants. On March 28, 2018, the
Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. On April 9, 2018,
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of such dismissal,
which is still pending before the Court.
Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.
In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized
subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates
Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and
resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates
branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name
of Popular Community Bank.
POPULAR INC: BPPR's Bid to Drop "Saad Maura" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motions of Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) to dismiss the
"Saad Maura" putative class action and to oppose class
certification remains pending, according to Popular, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
BPPR has been named a defendant in two separate putative class
actions captioned Costa Dorada Apartment Corp., et al. v. Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., and Yiries Josef Saad Maura v.
Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the
Gonzalez Camacho action, on behalf of commercial and residential
customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject
to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their
mortgage servicers.
As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought
to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them
with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to
lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims
against them in parallel (dual tracking), all in violation of
TILA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA")
and other consumer-protection laws and regulations. They demand
approximately US$1 billion (in Costa Dorada) and unspecified
damages (in Saad Maura).
Banco Popular has not yet been served with summons in relation to
the Costa Dorada Matter.
On January 3, 2018, plaintiffs in the Saad Maura case requested
that Banco Popular waive service of process, which it agreed to
do on February 1, 2018. BPPR subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in
the Gonzalez Camacho action (as did most co-defendants,
separately). BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class
certification.
Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.
In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized
subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates
Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and
resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates
branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name
of Popular Community Bank.
POPULAR INC: Aug. 2018 Fairness Hearing Set for "Valle" Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing has been scheduled for August 2018 related to
a settlement of the case Josefina Valle v. Popular Community Bank
(now Popular Bank), according to Popular, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
The Company's New York-chartered banking subsidiary, Popular Bank
(PB), has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community
Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court
(New York County). Plaintiffs, PB customers, allege among other
things that PB has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and
payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint
further alleges that PB improperly disclosed its consumer
overdraft policies and that the overdraft rates and fees assessed
by PB violate New York's usury laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. After
several procedural steps that included a ruling partially
granting PB's motion to dismiss and the filing of an amended
complaint that was also partially dismissed, on August 12, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On September 17,
2015, PB filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and on February 18, 2016, the Court granted it in part and denied
it in part, dismissing plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive acts and
trade practices claim to the extent it sought to recover
overdraft fees incurred prior to September 2011. On March 28,
2016, PB filed an answer to the second amended complaint.
On April 7, 2016, PB filed a notice of appeal on the partial
denial of PB's motion to dismiss and after briefing and the
holding of oral argument, on April 25, 2017, the Appellate
Division issued an order denying PB's appeal. On November 13,
2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle. Under this
agreement, subject to certain customary conditions including
court approval of a final settlement agreement in consideration
for the full settlement and release of defendant, an amount up to
US$5.2 million will be paid to qualified plaintiffs.
In March 2018, the Court entered an order for the preliminary
approval of the settlement. A fairness hearing has been
scheduled for August 2018.
Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.
In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized
subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates
Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and
resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates
branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name
of Popular Community Bank.
POPULAR INC: Settlement of "Duncan" Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case styled Eugene Duncan v. Popular North
America have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
putative class action, according to Popular, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
Popular North America was named a defendant in a putative class
action complaint captioned Duncan v. Popular North America, filed
on January 29, 2018 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The complaint generally asserted
that Popular North America ("PNA") failed to design, construct,
maintain and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by plaintiff and other blind or visually-
impaired people, and that PNA's denial of full and equal access
to its website, and therefore to its products and services,
violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff sought a
permanent injunction to cause a change in defendant's allegedly
unlawful corporate policies, practices and procedures so that its
website becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually
impaired customers. On April 3, 2018, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter.
Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has
operations in Puerto Rico, the United States and the Caribbean.
In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides retail, mortgage, and
commercial banking services through its principal banking
subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), as well as
investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and equipment leasing and
financing, and insurance services through specialized
subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation operates
Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses efforts and
resources on the core community banking business. BPNA operates
branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under the name
of Popular Community Bank.
PRA GROUP: 4th Cir. Appeal in "Pounds" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
PRA Group, Inc. reports in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that it has filed an appeal with the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina's order remanding the "Pounds"
case to the North Carolina state court.
The case is Iris Pounds v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
On November 21, 2016, Iris Pounds filed the suit against the
Company in Durham County, North Carolina alleging violations of
the North Carolina Prohibited Practices by Collection Agencies
Act. The purported class consists of all individuals against
whom the Company had obtained a judgment by default in North
Carolina on or after October 1, 2009. The Company removed the
matter to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina (the "District Court"), and has filed
a motion to dismiss. The District Court has entered an order
remanding the matter to the North Carolina state court, which
order the Company has appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The Company said, "The range of loss, if any, cannot be estimated
at this time due to the uncertainty surrounding liability, class
certification and the interpretation of statutory damages."
PRA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries, is
a global financial and business services company with operations
in the Americas and Europe. The Company's primary business is
the purchase, collection and management of portfolios of
nonperforming loans.
PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Gregory Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Gregory filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion & order dated March 13, 2018, and the District
Court Clerk's judgment dated March 14, 2018, entered in the
lawsuit styled Gregory, et al. v. ProNAi Therapeutics Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-cv-8703, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including attorneys' fees and other
equitable/injunctive relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Pronai, a clinical stage oncology company, produced only one
product, PNT2258, which was purportedly designed to target
cancers that over-express B-cell lymphoma such as Hodgkin's
lymphomas and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients with relapsed or
refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.
On June 6, 2016, the Company issued a press release announcing
interim data for the two Phase 2 trials and revealed that PNT2258
had failed to produce sufficient efficacy results to justify its
continued clinical development. On this news, the price of
Pronai common stock declined from a closing share price of $6.38
per share on June 3, 2016, to close at $2.07 per share on June 6,
2016, a loss of more than 67%, on extremely heavy trading volume.
The appellate case is captioned as Gregory, et al. v. ProNAi
Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1061, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff Shannon Lee Hopkins is represented by:
Shannon Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
733 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 992-4523
E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
Defendants-Appellees ProNAi Therapeutics Inc., Nick Glover and
Sukhi Jagpal are represented by:
Peter Stokes, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
98 San Jacinto Boulevard
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 536-5287
E-mail: pstokes@fulbright.com
QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Defends Class Lawsuit over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quintana Energy Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that a class action has been filed
against one of the Company's subsidiaries alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") relating to non-payment of
overtime pay.
Quintana Energy further stated, "The Company believes its pay
practices comply with the FLSA. The case is working its way
through the various stages of the legal process, however
management believes the Company's exposure is not material."
Quintana Energy Services Inc. is a growth-oriented provider of
diversified oilfield services to leading onshore oil and natural
gas exploration and production ("E&P") companies operating in
both conventional and unconventional plays in all of the active
major basins throughout the United States. The Company operates
through four reporting segments, which are Directional Drilling,
Pressure Pumping, Pressure Control and Wireline.
QUORUM HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Rao" Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has denied the Quorum Health Corporation's motion to
dismiss the purported class action styled Zwick Partners LP and
Aparna Rao, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems,
Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller and Michael
J. Culotta, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018.
On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee against the Company and certain of its
officers. The Amended Complaint, filed on September 13, 2017,
purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of the Company between May 2, 2016 and August
10, 2016 and alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
violated federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making alleged false and/or misleading
statements and failing to disclose certain information regarding
aspects of the Company's business, operations and compliance
policies.
On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding additional defendants, Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash. On June 23, 2017, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs opposed on August 22,
2017. On April 20, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss.
Quorum Health said, "The Company is vigorously defending itself
in this matter. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of
this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that the Company
may incur a loss in connection with this matter. The Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such
reasonably possible loss because the motion to dismiss is still
pending and discovery is stayed pending resolution of the motion
to dismiss. Under some circumstances, losses incurred in
connection with adverse outcomes in this matter could be
material."
Quorum Health Corporation provides hospital and outpatient
healthcare services in the United States. Its hospital and
outpatient healthcare services include general and acute care,
emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care,
internal medicine, obstetric, diagnostic, psychiatric, and
rehabilitation services.
REDFIN CORP: Sales Associates' Claims Settlement Gets Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Redfin Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that pursuant to the terms of a Court-approved
settlement among parties in three lawsuits, all claims have been
dismissed.
Third-party licensed sales associates filed three lawsuits
against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California in 2013 and 2014. Two of the actions, which were pled
as "class actions," were removed to 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 ("PAGA"). The third action was brought
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and asserts
representative claims under PAGA. All three complaints alleged
that the Company had misclassified current and former third-party
licensed sales associates in California as independent
contractors and generally seek compensation for unpaid wages,
overtime, and failure to provide meal and rest periods, as well
as reimbursement of business expenses.
In June 2017, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve
all three of these lawsuits for an aggregate payment of US$1,800.
The proposed settlement class contemplated by the agreement
includes all current and former third party licensed sales
associates engaged by the Company in California from January 16,
2009, through April 29, 2017.
The court issued final approval of the settlement on March 23,
2018, and the Company paid the settlement amount on March 30,
2018. The Company had recorded an accrual for US$1,800 as of
December 31, 2017. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, all
claims have been dismissed. The settlement does not contain any
admission of liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility.
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.
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: No Hearing Date Yet in Calif. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
No hearing date has been set yet in a consolidated putative class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against Regulus Therapeutics Inc., among
other defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
The Company states, "On January 31, 2017, a putative class action
complaint was filed by Baran Polat in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, or District Court,
against us, Paul C. Grint (our former Chief Executive Officer),
and Joseph P. Hagan (then our Chief Operating Officer and
currently our President and Chief Executive Officer). The
complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain
purchasers of our securities, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In general, the
complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and June 27,
2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding our
business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our securities. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
"On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint
was filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company,
Mr. Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's Chief
Research and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims
similar to those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been
related.
"On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order
stating that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond,
until the District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead
plaintiff and lead counsel, and the parties then submit a
schedule to the District Court for the filing of an amended or
consolidated complaint and the timing of defendants' answer or
response.
"On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two
actions, appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel
were filed in the actions, or the Consolidation and Lead
Plaintiff Motions. On October 26, 2017, the District Court
entered an order consolidating the cases, appointing lead
plaintiffs, and appointing lead counsel for lead plaintiffs.
"On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael
Huang (our former Vice President of Clinical Development). The
consolidated complaint alleges that between February 17, 2016 and
June 12, 2017, the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding RG-101. The
consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.
"On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their
opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed
their response. No hearing date has been set. We intend to
vigorously defend this matter."
Regulus Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on discovering and developing first-in-class
drugs targeting microRNAs to treat diseases with significant
unmet medical need.
REVLON CONSUMER: Bid to Dismiss Merger Lawsuit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated lawsuit related to the Elizabeth
Arden Merger Agreement are awaiting Court decision on the motion
to dismiss the third amended complaint, according to Revlon
Consumer Products Corporation's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The motion was heard on
March 29, 2018.
Following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth
Arden Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the
Merger. In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of
plaintiffs Parker, Christiansen, Ross and Stein on July 25, 2016,
a lawsuit (Hutson v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No.
CACE-16-013566) (referred to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed
in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida (the "Court") against Elizabeth Arden, the members of the
board of directors of Elizabeth Arden, Revlon, Products
Corporation and Acquisition Sub. In general, the Hutson
complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Elizabeth
Arden's shareholders with respect to the Merger, by, among other
things, approving the Merger pursuant to an unfair process and at
an inadequate and unfair price; and (ii) Revlon, Products
Corporation and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of
directors. The plaintiff seeks relief similar to that sought in
the Parker case.
By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated
by the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action.
Thereafter, on August 11, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint was filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from
consummating the Merger and/or from soliciting shareholder votes.
To the extent that the Merger was consummated, the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or
recover rescissory or other compensatory damages, along with
costs and fees. The grounds for relief set forth in the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in large part track
those grounds as asserted in the five individual complaints, as
previously disclosed. Class counsel advised that post-
consummation of the Merger they were going to file a Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which superseded the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint) was ultimately filed
on or about January 26, 2017. Like the Consolidated Amended
Class Action complaint, the grounds for relief set forth in the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in large part
track those grounds as asserted in the five individual
complaints.
The defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint were filed on March 28, 2017.
Plaintiffs' response was filed on June 6, 2017 and defendants'
replies were filed on July 13, 2017. A hearing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss was held on September 19, 2017 and
on November 20, 2017, the defendants' motion was granted and the
case was dismissed, with leave to amend under limited
circumstances.
On December 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint,
seeking relief on the same grounds sought in the First and Second
Amended Complaints, but alleged as direct, as opposed to
derivative, claims. On January 12, 2018, the defendants once
again moved to dismiss. The motion was heard on March 29, 2018
and the parties await a decision.
Revlon Consumer said, "The Company believes the allegations
contained in the Third Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously
defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or
relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in
the future."
The Company is a global beauty company with an iconic portfolio
of brands.
RINGCENTRAL INC: Appeal from Dismissed "SPS" Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC's appeal from the
dismissed putative class action against RingCentral, Inc. related
to alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act has not yet been scheduled, according to
RingCentral's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.
On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC ("SPS") filed a
putative class action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
common law conversion and violations of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") arising from fax cover sheets
used by the Company's customers when sending facsimile
transmissions over the Company's system ("SPS Lawsuit"). SPS
seeks statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction
in connection with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and
punitive damages in connection with its conversion claim.
On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Expedited
Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC"), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying
certain portions of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at
issue in the SPS Lawsuit ("Petition"). The Petition remains
pending.
On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the SPS
Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateral motion to
dismiss or stay the SPS Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on
the Company's Petition. On October 7, 2016, the Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and gave SPS 20 days to amend its
complaint. The Court concurrently dismissed the Company's motion
to dismiss or stay as moot.
Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016,
alleging essentially the same theories and claims. On November
21, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, along with a renewed motion to dismiss or stay the
case pending resolution of the FCC Petition. On July 17, 2017,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice
and concurrently dismissed the Company's motion to dismiss or
stay as moot.
SPS filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on July 28, 2017. SPS's opening brief on appeal was
filed on December 20, 2017, and the Company's opposition brief
was filed on February 20, 2018. SPS filed its reply brief on
April 12, 2018. Oral argument in the appeal has not yet been
scheduled.
The Company said, "It is too early to predict the outcome of the
SPS Lawsuit. Based on the information known by the Company as of
the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable
to the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated
financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated
amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur."
RingCentral, Inc., is a provider of software-as-a-service
("SaaS") solutions for the way employees communicate and
collaborate in business. The Company enables convenient and
effective communications for its customers, across all their
locations, all their employees, all the time, thus, enabling them
to be more productive and more responsive to their customers.
RINGCENTRAL INC: Bid to Drop "Hurley" Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Joann Hurley's second
amended complaint over alleged violations of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act remains pending, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.
On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley, filed a second amended
complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and
alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the TCPA
and regulations promulgated thereunder by allegedly using an
automated telephone dialing system to deliver prerecorded
political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for
reelection, and others. Hurley alternatively alleges that the
Company is vicariously liable for the actions of its co-
defendants. Hurley seeks statutory, compensatory, consequential,
incidental and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in
connection with her claims. The Company was served with the
second amended complaint on January 4, 2018.
On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state
a claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her
opposition brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its
reply brief on April 13, 2018. The motion is currently pending
before the court.
The Company said, "It is too early to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit. Based on the information known by the Company as of the
date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to
the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of
any such loss or range of loss that may occur."
RingCentral, Inc., is a provider of software-as-a-service
("SaaS") solutions for the way employees communicate and
collaborate in business. The Company enables convenient and
effective communications for its customers, across all their
locations, all their employees, all the time, thus, enabling them
to be more productive and more responsive to their customers.
SHUTTERFLY INC: Class Action on Lifetouch ERISA Breaches Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case Vigilant v Meek et al., a purported class action
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act is ongoing, according to Shutterfly, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
On March 1, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed
against several directors of Lifetouch, Inc. (which became a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Shutterfly on April 2, 2018)
and the trustee of the Lifetouch Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(the "ESOP") in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota. On April 2, 2018, the complaint was amended to
include the prior ESOP trustees and plan sponsor (Lifetouch) as
additional named defendants. The complaint alleges violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, including that the
ESOP should not have been permitted to continue investing in
Lifetouch stock during a period in which the Lifetouch stock
price was declining. Lifetouch believes this suit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products
and services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the
European Community. The Company operates through Consumer and
Shutterfly Business Solutions segments. It was founded in 1999
and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from the dismissed
purported securities class action lawsuit in New York against
Sierra Oncology, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
On November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
executive officers (the New York Lawsuit). The New York Lawsuit
was brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to
represent a class consisting of stockholders who purchased stock
between July 15, 2015 and June 6, 2016. The New York Lawsuit
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered a final judgment dismissing the New York
Lawsuit with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal.
Sierra Oncology said, "The Company believes that the claims in
the New York Lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously. It is possible that additional similar
lawsuits could be filed. Due to the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome."
Sierra Oncology is a clinical stage drug development company
advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients
with cancer. The company is based in British Columbia, Canada.
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Class Suits in Calif. Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two possible securities class action lawsuit in California
remains pending against Sierra Oncology, Inc., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
On November 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo against the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and the underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering of its common stock. On
February 9, 2017, a substantially identical putative class action
suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Mateo asserting the same claims on behalf
of the same putative class (the two lawsuits together, the
California Lawsuits).
The California Lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of
the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of
stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to and/or traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1. The lawsuits
assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Exchange Act and
seek unspecified damages and other relief. The California
Lawsuits remain pending.
Sierra Oncology said, "The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to defend the California Lawsuits
vigorously. It is possible that additional similar lawsuits
could be filed. Due to the early stage of the litigation, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of these cases and is
unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of
loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome."
Sierra Oncology is a clinical stage drug development company
advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients
with cancer. The company is based in British Columbia, Canada.
SOLID BIOSCIENCES: "Lowinger" Class Complaint Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Solid Biosciences Inc. defends itself against a putative class
action complaint filed by Robert Lowinger in the Business
Litigation Section of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018.
The Company said, "On March 28, 2018, Robert Lowinger, a
purported stockholder of ours, filed a putative class action
complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws, in
the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1884-00984),
against us, Ilan Ganot, Jennifer Ziolkowski, our directors and
certain of the underwriters in our initial public offering. The
plaintiff in this suit claims to represent purchasers of our
common stock in or traceable to our January 25, 2018 initial
public offering and seeks unspecified damages arising out of the
alleged failure to disclose risks associated with toxicity and
potential for adverse events related to our lead product
candidate."
Solid Biosciences Inc. engages in identifying and developing
therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States.
The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Court OK on "Williams" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. is awaiting Court approval of its
settlement agreement with the parties in the "Williams" class
action and derivative proceeding, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. If the Court approves
the settlement, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.
On September 8, 2016, Yvonne Williams filed an action both
derivatively and on behalf of a purported class of stockholders
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court")
against each of the members of the Henry Ji, William S. Marth,
Kim D. Janda, Jaisim Shah, David H. Deming, and Douglas Ebersole
(the "Prior Board"); George Ng, the Company's Executive Vice
President, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chief Legal Officer;
Jeffrey Su, the Company's Executive Vice President & Chief
Operating Officer; and the Company as nominal defendant,
alleging: (1) breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the
formation of, and certain options and warrants issued by, certain
of the Company's subsidiaries to Dr. Ji and members of the Prior
Board; (2) breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the Company's
prior announcement that it had entered into a voting agreement
with Yuhan Corporation in connection with a transaction through
which it purchased US$10 million of shares of the Company's
common stock and warrants (the "Williams Action"). On November
14, 2016, the Company filed motions to dismiss or in the
alternative stay the Williams Action. George Ng and Jeffrey Su
were dismissed as defendants by plaintiff during the briefing on
the motions. The Court denied the motions on June 28, 2017.
On October 25, 2017, Yvonne Williams filed a Supplemental and
Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint which re-added
George Ng as a defendant, added Eragon Ventures, LLC as a
defendant, and added certain claims challenging transactions
whereby Eragon Ventures, LLC agreed to purchase certain stock in
the Company's subsidiary, LA Cell, Inc. Following a mediation
held on November 16, 2017, the parties agreed that day to a term
sheet reflecting a settlement of the Williams Action, which
agreement was memorialized in a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement executed on December 22, 2017 and filed with the
Court. The settlement and plaintiff's counsel's request for an
award of attorneys' fees in the amount of US$5 million have been
submitted to the Court for approval. The Court set a hearing on
the request for approval of the settlement for May 15, 2018 and
the Company has caused notice to be provided concerning the
settlement and settlement hearing. Objections to the settlement
or the requested award of attorneys' fees were due no later than
March 5, 2018.
The Company initially objected to the amount of fees being
requested by plaintiff's counsel. The parties thereafter agreed
that plaintiff's counsel could seek attorneys' fees of up to
US$3.25 million, to which the Company and defendants would not
object. As a result, the Company has estimated a range of
possible loss to be from approximately US$1.0 million to US$3.25
million and has recorded its best estimate of the potential
liability associated with the legal proceeding which the Company
expects to be covered in large part but not in whole by
insurance.
If the Court approves the settlement, this case will be dismissed
with prejudice. The settlement consists of non-monetary
consideration, such as the cancellation of certain subsidiary
shares of stock that were obtained by defendants pursuant to
options previously exercised by defendants. Accordingly, the
Company does not anticipate any monetary loss with respect to the
Williams Action other than for potential payment of the amount of
fees and costs that may be awarded to plaintiff's counsel by the
Court as described above.
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company is engaged in the discovery, acquisition, development and
commercialization of drug therapeutics. Its primary focus is to
transform cancer into a treatable or chronically manageable
disease. It is also developing therapeutic products for other
indications, including immunology and infectious diseases.
SOUTH DAKOTA, USA: Stanko Appeals D.S.D. Judgment to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rudy Butch Stanko filed an appeal from the District
Court's judgment and order both entered on March 28, 2018, in the
lawsuit titled Rudy Stanko v. South Dakota State Brand Board, et
al., Case No. 5:17-cv-05060-JLV, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Dakota - Rapid City.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff seeks redress for alleged violations of equal rights
under 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1981
The appellate case is captioned as Rudy Stanko v. South Dakota
State Brand Board, et al., Case No. 18-1791, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant Rudy Butch Stanko, individually, and on
behalf of similarly situated cattle ranchers on the Pine Ridge
Reservation and border towns, appears pro se.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Brief of Appellant Rudy Butch Stanko is due on May 29,
2018;
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellant;
-- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
appellee brief.[BN]
Defendants-Appellees South Dakota State Brand Board and Jake
Schofield, individually and in his official capacity as South
Dakota State Brand Inspector, are represented by:
Robert L. Morris, II, Esq.
MORRIS LAW FIRM
704 Seventh Avenue, Second Floor - Suite 2
P.O. Box 370
Belle Fourche, SD 57717-0370
Telephone: (605) 723-7777
Defendants-Appellee Philip Livestock Auction and Thor Roseth,
individually and as owner of the Philip Livestock Auction, are
represented by:
Michael W. Strain, Esq.
STRAIN & MORMAN LAW FIRM
850 Main Street
P.O. Box 729
Sturgis, SD 57785-0729
Telephone: (605) 347-3624
E-mail: firm@mormanlaw.com
SOUTHCROSS ENERGY: 3 Merger-Related Suits Dismissed, 2 Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southcross Energy Partners, L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that as of May 7.
2018, three putative class actions related to its Merger
Agreement were dismissed while two class suits remain pending.
The Company said, "On October 31, 2017, we and our General
Partner entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger
Agreement") with American Midstream Partners, LP ("AMID"),
American Midstream GP, LLC, the general partner of AMID ("AMID
GP"), and a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMID ("Merger Sub"). The
Merger Agreement provides that we will be merged with Merger Sub
(the "Merger"), with the Partnership surviving the merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of AMID.
"In connection with the Merger, five putative class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. The actions were filed against multiple,
different entities and individuals, including by way of example
only and among others, the Partnership, our General Partner,
Southcross Holdings, Holdings GP, AMID, AMID Merger Sub, and
certain former and current members of our executive management
and the Board of Directors of our General Partner. As of May 7,
2018, three of such actions have been dismissed. Those cases
are:
* Robinson Iglesias v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP,
Southcross Holdings GP LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W.
Biegler, Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jason H. Downie,
Wallace Henderson, Jerry W. Pinkerton, Cherokee Merger Sub LLC,
and American Midstream Partners, LP , Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-
00158-N. Dismissed on April 10, 2018.
* Adrian Marshall v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP,
Southcross Holdings GP LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W.
Biegler, Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jr., Jason H.
Downie, Jerry W. Pinkerton, Randall S. Wade, Bret M. Allan,
American Midstream Partners, LP, and Cherokee Merger Sub LLC ,
Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00272-D. Dismissed on April 11, 2018.
* Kristin Doller v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP,
Southcross Holdings GP LLC, David W. Biegler, Andrew A. Cameron,
Nicholas J. Caruso, Jr., Jason H. Downie, Jerry W. Pinkerton,
Randall S. Wade, and Bruce A. Williamson , Civil Action No. 3:18-
cv-00291-N. Dismissed on April 10, 2018.
"The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
registration statement on Form S-4 (file no. 333-222501) is
false and materially misleading and that the defendants have
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Generally, the
complaints seek class certification, injunctive relief, damages,
declaratory relief, and attorney's fees and court costs. The two
remaining actions filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas are captioned as follows:
* Anthony Franchi v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W.
Biegler, Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jr., Jason H.
Downie, Jerry W. Pinkerton, Randall S. Wade, American Midstream
Partners, LP, American Midstream Partners GP, LLC, and Cherokee
Merger Sub LLC, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00179-D.
* Robert Johnson v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP,
Southcross Holdings GP LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W.
Biegler, Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jr., Jason H.
Downie, Jerry W. Pinkerton, Randall S. Wade, Civil Action No.
3:18-cv-00289-C
"All defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the
proposed Transaction and plan to defend rigorously against all
pending claims."
Southcross Energy Partners, L.P. is a master limited partnership
that provides natural gas gathering, processing, treating,
compression and transportation services and NGL fractionation and
transportation services. It also sources, purchases, transports
and sells natural gas and NGL. Its assets are located in South
Texas, Mississippi and Alabama and include two gas processing
plants, one fractionation plant and approximately 3,100 miles of
pipeline. The South Texas assets are located in or near the
Eagle Ford shale region. Southcross is headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.
SPARK ENERGY: "Jurich" Suit v. Verde Companies Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action styled Jurich v. Verde Energy
USA, Inc. expect the court to schedule oral argument "at some
point in spring or summer 2018," according to Spark Energy,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
Verde Energy USA, Inc.; Verde Energy USA Commodities, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Connecticut, LLC; Verde Energy USA DC, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Illinois, LLC; Verde Energy USA Maryland, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Massachusetts, LLC; Verde Energy USA New Jersey, LLC;
Verde Energy USA New York, LLC; Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Pennsylvania, LLC; Verde Energy USA Texas Holdings,
LLC; Verde Energy USA Trading, LLC; and Verde Energy Solutions,
LLC (collectively, the "Verde Companies") operate as retail
energy providers and were formed on various dates from December
27, 2007 to November 13, 2014. The Company acquired the Verde
Companies on July 1, 2017.
Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a class action originally
filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October
8, 2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford,
State of Connecticut. The Amended Complaint asserts that the
Verde Companies charged rates in violation of its contracts with
Connecticut customers and alleges (i) violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs.
42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and
punitive damages for the class and injunctive relief. The
parties have exchanged initial discovery.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was briefed and the
Verde Companies filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on October 17, 2017. On December 6, 2017,
the Court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion.
However, the Court opted not to send out class notices, and
instead directed the parties to submit briefing on legal issues
that could result in a modification or decertification of the
class. The parties completed that briefing on April 16, 2018.
The parties expect the court to schedule oral argument at some
point in spring or summer 2018. As part of an agreement in
connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the
original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter.
The Company said, "Given the early stage of this matter, we
cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this
time."
Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy
services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware
corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in
competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.
SPARK ENERGY: "Richardson" Class Suit v. Verde Companies Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action styled Richardson et al v. Verde
Energy USA, Inc. is still ongoing, according to Spark Energy,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.
Verde Energy USA, Inc.; Verde Energy USA Commodities, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Connecticut, LLC; Verde Energy USA DC, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Illinois, LLC; Verde Energy USA Maryland, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Massachusetts, LLC; Verde Energy USA New Jersey, LLC;
Verde Energy USA New York, LLC; Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Pennsylvania, LLC; Verde Energy USA Texas Holdings,
LLC; Verde Energy USA Trading, LLC; and Verde Energy Solutions,
LLC (collectively, the "Verde Companies") operate as retail
energy providers and were formed on various dates from December
27, 2007 to November 13, 2014. The Company acquired the Verde
Companies on July 1, 2017.
Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class
action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the
Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members'
cellular phones without prior express consent and by continuing
to make such calls after receiving requests for the calls to
cease. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages for the
purported class and injunctive relief prohibiting Verde
Companies' alleged conduct. Discovery on the claims of the named
plaintiffs closed on November 10, 2017, and dispositive motions
on the named plaintiffs' claims were filed on November 24, 2017.
Plaintiffs' responses to the dispositive motions were filed on
December 22, 2017 and Verde Companies' reply briefs were filed on
January 5, 2018.
No hearing has been set on these motions, according to the
Company.
On March 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority regarding the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA Int'l v.
FCC. Verde Companies filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority
regarding the ACA decision on March 23, 2018.
As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the
Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are
handling this matter.
The Company said, "Given the early stages of this matter, we
cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this
time."
Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy
services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware
corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in
competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.
SUNOCO INC: Faces "White" Suit in D. South Dakota
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunoco Inc. The
case is styled as Donald White, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sunoco Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-mc-00021-KES (D. S.D., May 11, 2018).
Sunoco, Inc., through its subsidiaries, refines and markets
petroleum products in the United States. Its Logistics segment
operates refined product and crude oil pipelines and terminals;
and acquires and markets crude oil and refined products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Billion, Esq.
Robins Kaplan LLP
140 North Phillips Avenue, Suite 307
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
Tel: (605) 335-1300
Fax: (605) 740-7199
Email: tbillion@robinskaplan.com
TESLA INC: Settles Enhanced Autopilot Car Owners' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Lambert, writing for electrek, reports that as part of the
settlement of a class action lawsuit started by a few Tesla
owners, the automaker has agreed to partially reimburse people
who bought cars with Enhanced Autopilot over the long delays to
roll out the features promised by the package.
If the settlement is approved by the court, Tesla will pay
between $20 and $280 to all U.S. Tesla owners who bought or
leased cars with Enhanced Autopilot between October 2016 and
September 2017.
Electrek has obtained the settlement agreement that was sent to
class representatives, who will now submit their thoughts on the
agreement to the court, which will decide whether or not to
approve the proposal.
The lawsuit itself emerged due to some Tesla owners growing
frustrated at the automaker missing deadlines for the rollout of
Autopilot 2.0 features.
In October 2016, Tesla introduced a new Autopilot hardware suite,
dubbed Autopilot 2.0, and promised that it would enable a series
of new features to be released to owners via over-the-air
software updates -- eventually leading up to "fully self-driving
capability".
The cars equipped with this hardware suite were available with
two packages: a $5,000 "Enhanced Autopilot" package, which
promised more advanced features building on the first generation
Autopilot's features, and a $3,000 "Fully Self-Driving" package,
which was sold on top of the "Enhanced Autopilot" package.
The suite was also supposed to enable several active safety
features, which are standard regardless of if any Autopilot
packages are added to the vehicle.
After bringing the new hardware to production, Tesla's goal was
first to release software upgrades to reach feature parity with
the first generation Autopilot by December 2016 -- just a few
months after releasing the hardware -- and to continue releasing
new software updates to eventually lead to fully self-driving
capability.
The timeline turned out to be completely unrealistic as Tesla had
a way harder time developing its own 'Tesla Vision' technology to
replace the Mobileye technology powering the first generation
Autopilot.
The safety features were first to come, but they were several
months late.
It was later revealed that Tesla planned to first use Mobileye's
technology for the second generation Autopilot and gradually
phase it out in favor of its own, but they couldn't come to an
agreement and the two companies had a hard fallout.
On top of the split with Mobileye, Tesla had several changes in
the Autopilot leadership team, which also likely contributed to
further delays in the rollout of new software updates.
It was only with an update released in April that owners have
come to a general consensus that the Autopilot 2.0 is now better
than the first generation, but it still doesn't have many of the
features first promised in the 'Enhanced Autopilot' package, like
On-ramp to Off-ramp and Smart Summon.
That's why several owners started a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all Tesla owners with Autopilot 2.0 in 2017.
The frustration from the delays boiled into allegations that
Tesla knew that it couldn't deliver the features on the announced
timeline and therefore, they "defrauded" customers:
"Tesla's deception has resulted in economic injury to owners of
its 2016-2017 models that were sold with the "HW 2.x"2 hardware
purportedly required for Enhanced Auto Pilot and Full- Self
Driving Capability (the 'Affected Vehicles'). By selling
vehicles with inoperative Standard Safety Features and
inoperative Enhanced Autopilot and Full-Self Driving features,
Tesla defrauded its customers and engaged in unfair competition.
Customers did not receive the benefit of their bargain -- they
paid many thousands of dollars for products they did not receive.
Further, consumers such as Plaintiffs would never have bought
their Tesla vehicles at all, or would have paid thousands less
for them, but for the promised Standard Safety Features the
vehicles were supposed to come with, and Enhanced Autopilot and
Full-Self Driving capabilities consumers could supposedly
activate in short order by purchasing Tesla's expensive software
options.
They never provided any evidence of fraud and Tesla has always
denied that it purposely misled buyers and instead said that it
was overoptimistic about the transition to its own computer
vision technology, which delayed the timeline.
The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit were asking for
several different relief actions, including Tesla buying back the
Autopilot 2.0 cars, the return of the premiums paid for both the
Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability packages, and
an unspecified amount as punitive damage.
In order to resolve the matter, the two parties engaged in a
mediation with mediator Randall Wulff and it resulted in an
agreement, according to the settlement that Electrek obtained.
The automaker denied any intention to defraud buyers or to settle
on those claims, but it agreed to compensate buyers for the
delays in order to resolve the matter.
Tesla agreed to place $5,032,530 in a settlement fund to
partially reimburse "U.S. residents who purchased Enhanced
Autopilot in connection with their purchase or lease of a Tesla
Hardware 2 Model S or Model X vehicle delivered to them on or
before September 30, 2017." The fund will also be used to pay
the attorneys' fees and the class representative fees.
The agreement still needs to be approved by the court, but if it
is approved as is, the payments will be issued based on when the
owners bought or leased their vehicles:
As part of the agreement, Tesla also "reaffirms its commitment to
release any Enhanced Autopilot features that as of the Effective
Date are not already released in Tesla Hardware 2 Vehicles."
Again, that would be the On-ramp to Off-ramp and Smart Summon
features.
The Fully Self-Driving Capability package wasn't included in the
deal, presumably because Tesla has used safer language about the
timeline of the release by saying that it was dependent on
software validation and regulatory approval.
Though Tesla CEO Elon Musk did say that he expected Autopilot on
the Fully Self-Driving Capability package to start being
differentiated from the Enhanced Autopilot package in mid-2017.
Again, the settlement agreement needs to be approved by the court
before becoming official, but sources said that all class
representative are onboard -- albeit begrudgingly in one case.
It could still take weeks before going to the judge.
Once it is approved, a notice will be sent out and a website will
be set up for owners to decide whether or not they decide to opt
in the settlement. While the settlement only covers U.S. owners,
it wouldn't be surprising to see the deal expand considering the
situation over the delayed features is the same across Tesla's
entire fleet of Autopilot 2.0 cars.
Tesla sent us the following statement regarding the settlement:
"Since rolling out our second generation of Autopilot hardware in
October 2016, we have continued to provide software updates that
have led to a major improvement in Autopilot functionality. This
has included an extensive overhaul of the underlying architecture
of our Autopilot software that enabled a step-change improvement
in its machine learning capabilities. Our neural net, which
expands as our customer fleet grows, is able to collect and
analyze more high-quality data than ever before, which will
enable us to roll out a series of new Autopilot features in 2018
and beyond. The customer response to our recent Autopilot
updates has been overwhelmingly positive, so we know we're on the
right track.
That said, as time passed since we first unveiled Hardware 2, it
eventually became clear that it was taking us longer to roll out
these features than we would have liked or initially expected.
We want to do right by those customers, so as part of a proposed
settlement agreement for a class action lawsuit filed last year,
we've agreed to compensate customers who purchased Autopilot on
Hardware 2 vehicles who had to wait longer than we expected for
these features. If the settlement is approved by the court,
customers will receive different amounts depending on when they
purchased and took delivery of their cars. Although the
settlement is specific to customers in the US, if it is approved
by the court, we've decided to compensate all customers globally
in the same way. There's no legal obligation to do so, but it's
the right thing to do." [GN]
TETRA TECH: Faces $27BB Class Action Over Radiation Cleanup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liz Wagner, writing for NBC Bay Area, reports that residents who
live in San Francisco's Hunters Point area filed a $27 billion
class action lawsuit against a Navy contractor hired to clean up
radiation at the nearby Hunters Point Shipyard.
Tetra Tech is accused of fraud in the radiation cleanup at the
superfund site.
Civil rights attorney Charles Bonner annoucned the lawsuit at a
news conference on May 1. Dozens of families who live in the
general area say they've gotten sick from the toxins at the
shipyard. Now, they're blaming Tetra Tech for threats of cancer
and other diseases.
"Tetra Tech whistleblowers have opened the floodgates of truth
and the plaintiffs in this lawsuit will prove that they have
suffered irreparable, generational harm because Hunters Point
Shipyard has remained toxic with radiation," Mr. Bonner said.
Back in 2014 the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit first exposed
allegations from whisleblowers that Tetra Tech botched the
cleanup of the shipyard. Earlier this year the Navy found
inconsistencies in Tetra Tech's soil sample data and said much of
it is likely fraudulent.
Tetra Tech responded to those allegations for the first time,
saying it stands by its work. A company spokesperson on May 1
called the lawsuit "factually inaccurate and meritless." [GN]
TIMOTHY FOLSTED: Class Certification Sought in "Benedict" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JOHN BENEDICT SR. v. TIMOTHY
FOLSTED, Case No. 1:18-cv-00242-WES-LDA (D.R.I.), complains of
negligence, promissory estoppel and undue influence and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiff is President of the Seed of Abraham MC Rhode Island
Chapter, a chapter of a nationally recognized unincorporated
association known as Seed of Abraham MC having a principal
address in Blackstone, Massachusetts.
The Defendant is president of the Wisconsin chapter of the Seed
of Abraham Motorcycle Club and Interim National President of the
Seed of Abraham MC, a nationally recognized unincorporated
association known as Seed of Abraham MC having a principal
address in Duluth, Minnesota.
The Plaintiff contends that he has been harmed when promised by
the Defendant of unity of the nation of Motorcycle Clubs known as
Seed of Abraham, whereby the Defendant recanted that promise by
instituting unachievable requirements to participate in a vote of
the national office of a president.
A copy of the Complaint and Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oe5eK21v
TPUSA INC: "Cazeau" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min., OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Cazeau, Dawn Stojkovic, Michael Anderson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TPUSA, Inc.
d/b/a Teleperformance USA, Case No. 2:18-cv-00321-PMW (D. Ut.,
April 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum wages,
overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
TPUSA, Inc. operates "Contact Centers" which provide telephone-
based customer service to the customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher B. Snow, Esq.
Shaunda L. McNeill, Esq.
CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS
One Utah Center, Suite 1300
201 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 322-2516
Facsimile: (801) 521-6280
E-mail: cbs@clydesnow.com
slm@clydesnow.com
TRIDENT ASSET: Court Stays Further Proceeding in "Olszewski" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings in the lawsuit titled MARY ANN OLSZEWSKI v.
TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:18-cv-00545-WED
(E.D. Wisc.).
According to the order, on April 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a
class action complaint. At the same time the Plaintiff filed
what the Court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for
class certification. In that motion the Plaintiff moved to
certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the
court to stay further proceedings on that motion.
In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts
to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, Judge Duffin
explains, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed
with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case,
the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district
court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional
discovery or investigation."
Hence, Judge Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings. The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dErzU9g8
TROY CONSTRUCTION: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stone" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Linda Stone filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Linda Stone v. Troy Construction LLC, Case No. 3-
14-cv-00306, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff raises claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant's company-wide policy and practice from February 2011
through the present has been to pay per diems to the vast
majority of its non-exempt, hourly employees.
The appellate case is captioned as Linda Stone v. Troy
Construction LLC, Case No. 18-1825, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LINDA STONE, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
rswartz@swartz-legal.com
jswindler@swartz-legal.com
Defendant-Appellee TROY CONSTRUCTION LLC is represented by:
James N. Boudreau, Esq.
Adam R. Roseman, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
2001 Market Street
2700 Two Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 988-7833
E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com
rosemana@gtlaw.com
- and -
Michael Burnett, Esq.
Jacob E. Godard, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 374-3500
E-mail: burnettm@gtlaw.com
godardj@gtlaw.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Recent Ruling May Lead to Use of ABC Test
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Hawkins, writing for The Verge, reports that gig
economy workers, including drivers for popular ride-hailing
services like Uber and Lyft, could find their employment status
shift under a major new decision from the top court in
California. The ruling will make it more difficult for companies
to classify their drivers as independent contractors and avoid
paying them wages and benefits as required by state law -- a
potentially huge setback for Uber and Lyft, which have built
their multibillion-dollar businesses on the backs of a flexible,
non-employed workforce.
THE "ABC TEST"
The California Supreme Court ruled on April 30 in favor of
workers for a document delivery company called Dynamex Operations
West that were seeking employment status. The drivers for the
delivery service first brought their case over a decade ago,
arguing that they were required to wear the company's uniform and
display its logo, while providing their own vehicles and
shouldering all the costs associated with the deliveries.
Legal experts say the ruling could have wide repercussions for
companies that use independent contractors, such as Uber, Lyft,
Amazon, Instacart, DoorDash, GrubHub, and others. It could
require those companies to apply the so-called "ABC test" to
their drivers and couriers. Used broadly, the test is meant to
determine whether workers should be considered employees or
contractors using a specific criteria:
(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of
the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both
under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;
(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual
course of the hiring entity's business; and
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently
established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as
the work performed for the hiring entity.
Spokespersons for Uber and Lyft did not immediately respond to a
request for comment. But lawyers for business groups in
California were already predicting that the decision will present
major challenges for ride-hailing companies and other gig economy
firms in how they define their relationship with their workers.
Companies are more likely to downplay the driving and delivery
services they provide, while emphasizing the backend technology
work that their full-time software engineers help create.
A TWIST IN RECENT CASE LAW
The ruling represents a twist in recent case law applying to the
gig economy. Several recent court decisions have favored the
classification of Uber drivers and other gig economy workers as
independent contractors, including a US district court decision
in early April that was said to be the first classification of
Uber drivers under federal law.
In 2016, Uber agreed to settle two class action lawsuits
challenging driver classification for as much as $100 million. A
federal judge later rejected the settlement, saying it was
neither fair nor adequate, and the case continues to lumber its
way through the courts. Earlier this year, a federal judge in
California ruled drivers for GrubHub are independent contractors,
not employees. The ruling was seen as a big win for GrubHub due
to California's relatively high standard for establishing workers
as independent contractors. [GN]
UNION PACIFIC: Faces Negligence Class Action Over 2016 Flood
------------------------------------------------------------
William Patrick, writing for Palestine Herald, reports that local
residents who suffered property loss during the 2016 flood say
they continue to incur damages. And they're blaming what they
call the railroad's faulty culverts.
A federal lawsuit, filed in April, could involve hundreds of
millions of dollars and nearly 50 counties.
It alleges Union Pacific Railroad failed for years to maintain
drainage systems and culverts. Resulting flooding, the suit
states, caused enormous property damage, and loss. The railroad,
in effect, took the plaintiffs' property, the suit alleges.
To prevent flooding and property damage, Union Pacific Railroad
is legally required, plaintiffs claim, to maintain, clean, clear,
replace, and enlarge water drainage culverts and drainage systems
along tracks.
The suit includes photographs of closed-off culverts, blocked
drainage pipes, and standing water on residents' land to show
damage done by flooding in the past two years.
"We get heavy rains," Charles Nichols of Palestine, lead-attorney
in the class-action suit, told the Herald-Press on April 30. "We
got them in 2016, and we'll get them again. If you live by any
railroad tracks, you've probably been affected."
Cynthia Smalley, of Palestine, is the suit's lead complainant.
In 2016, Ms. Smalley's home was knocked off its pier-and-beam
foundation; the interior and all its contents were destroyed in
the flood.
Upon inspecting the railroad-maintained culvert following the
storm, Smalley noted trees, dirt, trash, and debris -- including
damaged railroad ties discarded by railroad workers --
effectively blocking the flow of water and preventing drainage.
After the storm, Ms. Smalley and her family subsequently met with
Union Pacific representatives, Samantha Rickard and Jim Greelis.
The representatives, Ms. Smalley said, acknowledged the culvert
was in disrepair. They also said it was defective and below the
regulated six-foot diameter.
Ms. Smalley said Union Pacific, however, has since made no
attempt to compensate her family; nor has the company made any
changes to the culvert near her property in the last two years to
protect her family from future flooding.
"We are aware of the complaints and what they are," Jeff DeGraff,
spokesperson for Union Pacific Railroad, told the Herald-Press on
May 1. Due to pending litigation, he declined further comment.
In the suit, Union Pacific said it had invested roughly $34
billion in its network, operations, and infrastructure between
2008 and 2017.
But the lawsuit alleges poorly maintained, or fully-ignored,
drainage systems have potentially caused flooding, damage, and
loss of property in 43 Texas counties, the lawsuit alleges.
When a main line of railroad track is under repair, workman must
place blue warning flags along the track. These flags give
notice to engineers and railroad employees that work is underway;
train traffic must come to a halt.
Typically, such delays result in lost profits for the railroad
and its shareholders -- profits, the suit claims, they are not
willing to lose.
Smalley and other claimants ask Union Pacific to pay for the
plaintiffs' land taken by repetitious backup and retention of
water. They also ask the railroad to clean, repair, and enlarge
its culverts adjacent to the properties of those involved in the
class-action suit.
That could conceivably cost billions of dollars. If Union Pacific
is unwilling to do it, the lawsuit asks the railroad to remove
its tracks and level the ground along its right-of-ways.
Nichols said no dollar amount has been specified; the lawsuit
must first be federally certified "class-action." Additionally,
he said, others affected by flooding due to faulty, or
unmaintained, railroad drainage systems might still contact him
and join the action.
A case this complicated could take years before going to trial.
[GN]
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Cotromano's Bid to Certify Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra entered an opinion memorandum and order
in the consolidated lawsuits styled RICHARD COTROMANO et al. v.
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION and PALM BEACH AGGREGATES, LLC,
Case No. 13-80928-Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla.), and JOSEPH ADINOLFE
etc., et al. v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No. 10-
80840-Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla.):
1. denying the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion to exclude testimony
of John Hauser and granting the Defendant's motion to
exclude testimony of John Kilpatrick;
2. denying as moot all other pending Daubert (motions in
limine). This order is without prejudice for either side
to renew any relevant Daubert challenge at a later stage of
this proceeding;
3. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Litigation
Class as against Defendant United Technologies Corporation;
4. denying the Plaintiffs' and Defendant Palm Beach
Aggregates, LLC's Joint Motion to Certify a Settlement
Class as against Defendant Palm Beach Aggregates LLC for
failure to establish ascertainability of the settlement
class, based on the essential defects attending the
proposed definition of the litigation class as more
specifically identified in this Order;
5. ruling that this case will proceed on behalf of the
individually named Plaintiffs;
6. directing the parties to submit a joint scheduling report
within 20 days advising as to their discovery and
scheduling needs, including a proposed trial date, going
forward without the class action allegations; and
7. denying as moot the Defendant's motion to strike untimely
disclosures re: expert Lawrence Wylie, Defendant's motion
to strike Plaintiffs' direct testimony affidavit of Brian
Moore and Plaintiff's motion to file a sur-reply to
Defendant's motion to strike Moore direct testimony. The
Plaintiffs' motion to expedite consideration of the motion
to extend fact discovery is also denied as moot.
A copy of the Opinion Memorandum and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vHOxGdR9
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM: Site Created for Students to Join Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Civinini, writing for The PIE News, reports that law firm
Asserson has created a website for students to sign up to the
group claim -- more than 1,000 students have now joined, which
the firm considers is enough to apply for a Group Litigation
Order "in the near future", it says in a statement.
"If the class action is accepted, universities would pay out
millions of pounds"
But Asserson expects more students will sign up to the action,
which could potentially see universities face claims for millions
of pounds.
"With the UCU estimating in March that strike action affected a
million students, with the loss of 575,000 teaching hours that
will not be rescheduled, we're expecting a surge of sign ups over
the coming weeks," Shimon Goldwater --
shimon.goldwater@asserson.co.uk -- a senior solicitor at
Asserson, said.
"If the class action is accepted, universities would pay out
millions of pounds. Over 20,000 undergraduates attend each large
UK university. Paying approximately GBP500 compensation each to
20,000 students would cost GBP10 million."
About 27% of the signatories are international students, Asserson
reveals in a statement.
One of the signatories, an international student from Canada,
complained about the lack of information.
"The school and the administration knew these strikes were
happening and did very little to prepare us students," he said.
"It was all very frustrating as we would walk around campus
unsure if we had classes or if our professor had joined the
strike."
For law student Robert Liow, the strike has had a strong impact
on international students.
"Education was never thought as a commodity, but the truth is
that to international students, universities have always been
selling education. There is a promise that when we come to this
country, we are going to be given a certain type of education --
people pay a lot of money for the privilege. We expect the
education that we pay for," he told The PIE News.
But the problem is not just with the tuition fees, he explained.
"If you are here for just one year and one third of your course
has been taken away by the strike . . . to have this done to
your student experience -- this especially impacts all
international students."
Mr. Liow, who comes from Singapore but is originally from
Malaysia, was among the first to start a campaign asking
universities to refund fees. He joined the group claim in
solidarity with the academics who were striking against the
proposed changes to their pension scheme, he told The PIE.
Support for lecturers on strike was widespread among students.
"If we win this group claim, it sets a precedent for refunds in
the future and this is going to create quite a big impact on the
universities," he claimed.
"They know in the future that if they do anything that will
trigger a strike action, they are liable to pay back students,
and this is a form of leverage that will work in favour of
lecturers and academics who are striking."
"We expect the education that we pay for"
A series of petitions have been started by students at various
universities asking for compensation over lost lectures or
leniency in exam marking after the strike and two students from
the University of Nottingham created a compensation calculator.
The strike caused worry also overseas, with the Chinese embassy
expressing concern over how the strike was going to affect
Chinese students in Britain.
While some universities have stated they would use any salary
savings from the strike to fund student services, many students
don't find this acceptable and want to receive direct financial
compensation, Asserson claimed.
The law firm is planning to apply for a Group Litigation Order,
and said that those students who are not part of the group will
still have a few months to join the collective action.
UUK wasn't able to provide a comment on the compensation claim at
this stage, but pointed to a document which offers information
for students wishing to file a complaint, including guidance from
the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which students can
reach if their complaint hasn't been solved internally by the
university.
The processes, the document explains, are informal and designed
to be an alternative to the adversarial legal processes.
As for international students, the document states that their
Tier 4 visa status should not have been affected, with absences
during the strike being recorded as 'authorised absences.'
A group of international students at LSE were recently successful
in their legal battle for compensation after their accommodation
provided by Unite Students was seen to be sub-standard. [GN]
WAWA INC: Wins Prelim. Nod of $25-Mil. Settlement in "Pfeifer"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul S. Diamond granted the motion to certify
conditionally a settlement class and approve preliminarily the
Parties' proposed $25 million settlement in the lawsuit captioned
GREG PFEIFER and ANDREW DORLEY v. WAWA, INC., et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-00497-PD (E.D. Pa.).
The matter is certified conditionally for settlement purposes as
a class action, only as to Counts I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII,
and IX, on behalf of these individuals:
All persons who were Terminated Employee Participants in the
Wawa, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("Wawa ESOP") as of
January 1, 2015 with account balances greater than $5,000.00
and the beneficiaries of such participants and any Alternate
Payees whose stock in the Wawa ESOP was liquidated pursuant
to 2015 Plan Amendment (i.e. Plan Amendment No. 4).
Excluded from the Class are Defendant trustees and members
of the Defendant Committee and their immediate families; the
current officers and directors of Defendant Wawa and their
immediate families; and legal representatives, successors,
heirs, and assigns of any such excluded persons.
The Settlement provides for a cash payment of $25 million -- less
Class Counsel's fees and costs and incentive payments to the
Class Representatives -- to the Wawa, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan. This payment will be allocated on a pro rata
basis among the approximately 2,300 Class Members, based on
shares held in September 2015 -- amounting to approximately $943
per share. Class Members may receive a distribution of their
settlement allocations or roll over the allocations to an IRA or
another qualified pension plan. If a Class Member does not make
an election, her settlement allocations will be transferred to
her Wawa 401(k) plan.
Under the terms of the Settlement, Class Counsel will apply for
up to twenty percent of the settlement amount (no more than $5
million) in fees, and an award of up to $150,000 in costs. Class
Counsel will also apply for a service incentive payment of up to
$25,000 for each of the three Class Representatives.
Greg Pfeifer, Andrew Dorley, and Michael DiLoreto are appointed
as Class Representatives. The law firms of Feinberg Jackson
Worthman & Wasow LLP, Block & Leviton LLP, and Donahoo &
Associates, P.C., are appointed as Class Counsel. Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, PLLC is appointed Liaison Counsel for the Class.
The Settlement Agreement and Proposed Plan of Allocation are
approved preliminarily. The Proposed Notice of Class Action
Settlement is approved.
Dahl Administration is appointed as the Settlement Administrator
and shall provide Class Notice and otherwise assist in
administration of the Settlement Agreement.
Class Counsel shall move for attorneys' fees and costs and a
service award for the Class Representatives no later than May 31,
2018.
The Plaintiffs shall file, no later than July 26, 2018, their
Motion for Final Approval. A hearing on final approval and
fairness of the Settlement shall be held on August 9, 2018, at
10:00 a.m.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EzGsCOt2
WAYNE, IN: Among Defendants in Lawsuit Over Case Service Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Truitt, writing for Palladium-Item, reports that a class
action suit filed in a Marion County court accuses four counties
-- including Wayne -- of charging too much in service fees to
some who have filed lawsuits within those counties over the
years.
The complaint was filed on behalf of five companies, one trust
and four individuals. It names the clerks of Wayne, Marion,
Hamilton and Johnson counties as defendants.
At issue is how much people should be charged in service fees
when they file lawsuits.
Under Indiana law, county clerks are allowed to collect a $10 fee
per defendant when a new case is filed. If the person filing the
suit wants the legal paperwork served by the county sheriff
instead of by certified mail, that comes with a $28 fee.
The lawsuit argues that $28 charge is supposed to replace -- not
be in addition to -- the $10-per-defendant fee.
According to the suit, "tens of thousands of individuals" could
have been charged the excess amount.
The plaintiffs want the money returned to those affected, along
with interest.
In Wayne County specifically, one person is named in the lawsuit
as having been overcharged: Denny Moore of Richmond.
In its response, the county argues Mr. Moore can't sue
individually or be part of the class action complaint because he
failed to file a tort claim notice within the time frame required
by state law.
Wayne County wants a ruling in its favor as well as the
plaintiffs to have to cover the clerk's legal fees associated
with the lawsuit.
A trial date has been set for March 12, 2019, in Marion County
Superior Court, but both sides are scheduled to take part in a
pre-trial conference on April 26 in Indianapolis.
A joint motion has been filed by the counties asking the judge to
allow them to hold off on compiling the six years' worth of
records that the plaintiffs want to use to determine a total
amount of damages in the case.
The counties would like the issue of whether they charged too
much to be decided before they spend a lot of time putting
together a list of people who might fall under the class action
suit.
No ruling has been issued yet on the motion. [GN]
WEINSTEIN CO: Class Action Plaintiffs Support Kagan Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that The Weinstein Co.
sale is not settled yet, as a second buyer submitted a late bid
for the company on May 1.
A source told Variety that the bidder is Howard Kagan, a former
partner at Harbinger Capital who has produced a number of
Broadway shows. Mr. Kagan's $315 million bid would keep the
company as a going concern, and would include a $30 million fund
for victims of Harvey Weinstein's alleged sexual abuses.
Lantern Capital, the Dallas-based private equity firm, was the
only bidder to submit a bid for the whole company before the 5
p.m. deadline on April 30. Lantern has offered $310 million,
plus the assumption of certain liabilities. Sonar Entertainment
submitted a smaller bid on April 30 for some of the TV library,
according to Dan Gagnier, a spokesman for the company.
It is unclear whether the Weinstein Co. will consider the Kagan
bid. The Weinstein Co. did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Kagan will have to argue for an extension of the April 30
deadline. If he is successful on that front, an auction would be
held on May 4.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued an open letter
on April 30 calling for bidders to establish a separate victims'
fund and adopt workplace practices to prevent sexual harassment.
Lantern has not committed to create a fund, which would seem to
require the consent of secured creditors.
The committee of unsecured creditors, which represents Weinstein
victims, has also raised an objection to the Lantern sale.
Five plaintiffs in a Weinstein class action suit issued a
statement on May 1 supporting the Kagan bid, which they said
would set aside $30 million for victims in the class action case.
"Mr. Kagan has a long history of supporting and promoting women
and diversity, and has stated that he intends to ensure that the
content of the new company is likewise forward-thinking and will
serve as a model for the industry," said Cris Armenta, one of
their attorneys. "We believe this is the best possible course of
action for the class of women who suffered unspeakable harassment
at the hands of Harvey Weinstein."
The five plaintiffs are Katherine Kendall, Zoe Brock, Sarah Ann
Masse, Melissa Sagemiller and Nannette Klatt. A sixth plaintiff,
Louisette Geiss, chairs the unsecured creditors committee and did
not join the statement of support for Mr. Kagan.
In a press release, Elizabeth Fegan, another attorney for the
class action plaintiffs, said the group is opposed to the Lantern
bid.
"Lantern's bid in no way addresses the victims of Harvey
Weinstein's sexual assault enterprise, and would sweep the 100+
instances of sexual assault, rape and more under the rug. We're
here to show them the assault survivors will not go away
quietly," Ms. Fegan said. "Victims have already shown they will
no longer be silenced, and we intend to protect them from being
further harmed."
It remains likely that Lantern will end up owning the company,
but it is not a done deal yet. [GN]
WILLBROS GROUP: Aug. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP regarding the Willbros Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
In re WILLBROS GROUP, INC. SECURITIES
Master File No. 4:14-cv-03084-KPE LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED WILLBROS GROUP,
INC. ("WILLBROS") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY
28, 2014, THROUGH AND INCLUDING MARCH 17, 2015 (THE "SETTLEMENT
CLASS")
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that the
above-captioned action (the "Action") has been certified as a
class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for
certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action, Wayne
County Employees' Retirement System and City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of themselves and the
other members of the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action with defendants Willbros, Randy R. Harl,
Van A. Welch, and John T. McNabb (collectively, "Defendants") for
the sum of $10,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If the
Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing will be held on August 2, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. CT, before
the Honorable Keith P. Ellison at the U.S. Courthouse, 515 Rusk
Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants
as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
April 13, 2018; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of Settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be
approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred
in connection with this Action, together with interest thereon
(which request may include a request for reimbursement of Lead
Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995).
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED WILLBROS COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 28, 2014, THROUGH AND INCLUDING MARCH 17,
2015 (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
BY THIS ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT THEREOF. If you have not
received a detailed Notice as referred to above and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing
to Willbros Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404055, Louisville, KY 40233-4055, or
by downloading this information at
www.WillbrosSecuritiesLitigation.com
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release online at
www.WillbrosSecuritiesLitigation.com by September 6, 2018, or by
mail postmarked no later than September 6, 2018, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to be
excluded, in writing, postmarked by September 6, 2018.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Willbros common stock
during the Settlement Class Period and you desire to be excluded
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than July 12, 2018,
in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred
to above. All members of the Settlement Class who do not validly
request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any
judgments or orders entered in the Action pursuant to the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.
Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court and also delivered by hand or First-Class
Mail to each of the following addresses such that it is received
no later than July 12, 2018:
COURT:
CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, TX 77002
LEAD COUNSEL:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL:
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
AMY PHARR HEFLEY
One Shell Plaza
910 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: April 18, 2018
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WINN-DIXIE: Former Employee Objects to Ch.11 Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Sullivan, writing for Law360, reports that a former
employee of a Louisiana Winn-Dixie grocery store objected on
April 30 in Delaware to the proposed Chapter 11 plan of the
store's parent company, saying the plan would impair her claims
and the claims of other workers pursuing a class action for
unpaid overtime in federal court.
In the objection, former customer service manager Kathy Chaves
said she commenced a lawsuit in Louisiana federal court in March
2016 seeking unpaid overtime wages from Winn-Dixie, which was
later certified as a class of all mid-level managers. [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 * * *