/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180627.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 27, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 128 Headlines A&B INSURANCE: Settlement in "Youngman" Has Preliminary Approval ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Discovery Ongoing in Surfside Suit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Postle" Suit ALTISOURCE ASSET: Appeal in Retirement System's Suit Underway APOLLO GLOBAL: "McEvoy" Class Suit Underway APOLLO GLOBAL: ClubCorp Shareholders' Suit Ongoing APOLLO GLOBAL: Asks Court to Strike Class Action Claims APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit over ADT IPO APPLE INC: "Brody" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. APPLE INC: "LaNasa" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. APPLE INC: "Mallh" Warranty Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss "Abouzied" Suit Underway AUTO ZONE: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in S.D. California AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: $15M Securities Case Accord Wins Final OK B RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Suit vs. MLV & Co. BABAD MANAGEMENT: Court Approves Settlement in "Penafiel" Suit BANK OF NEW YORK: Depositary Receipt Litigation Still Ongoing BBVA COMPASS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal BBVA COMPASS: St. Lucie Firefighters' Suit Still Ongoing BBVA COMPASS: Continues to Defend "Hossfeld" Suit BBVA COMPASS: Suit by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Ongoing BBVA COMPASS: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Bellissimo" Suit BBVA COMPASS: Faces Lopez-Wright Suit in Illinois BBVA COMPASS: Settlement in Principle Reached in "Andrade" Case BBVA COMPASS: Faces Oklahoma Firefighters Pension Fund Suit BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Klein" Suit BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against "Raatz" Suit BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Summary Judgment Bids in TCPA Suit OK'd CARDINAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Opioid Related Suits Underway CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sinohu Seeks Approval of Legal Fees & Costs CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Reached in "French" Suit CERRO FLOW: Ill. App. Vacates Good Faith Finding in "Custer" Deal COUNTRY CLUB: Clarification Order in "Mickles" FLSA Suit Vacated COZI INC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Class in "Boutell" ERISA Suit Certified DISH NETWORK: Unit Appeals Ruling in "Krakauer" Suit DONISIJAX INC: Faces "Missry" Suit in E.D. New York E! ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Bid to Dismiss "Pipetone" Suit Underway FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Merger-Related Suits Filed FAMOUS DAVE'S RIBS: "Broad" to Recover Illegally-Withheld Tips FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 23 FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces "Wilde" Suit in S.D. California FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal Order FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Page" Suit in E.D. New York FRONT YARD: Discovery Underway in "Martin" Suit GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Neuman" Suit in E.D. New York HENRY SCHEIN: Miami General Employees Trust Named Lead Plaintiff HENRY SCHEIN: Amended Complaint Filed in Marion Diagnostic Suit HRONIS INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit in California Superior Court I-FORTUNE COOKIE: "Chauca" Suit Seeks Retained Tips, Overtime Pay IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 3 Suits over BioCryst Merger KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Negotiations on Legal Fees Ongoing LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Smith" Suit Underway LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Securities Suit in Utah Now Concluded LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Tutor" and "Trinchero" Suits Consolidated M & T BANK: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York MALLINCKRODT PLC: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Amended City of Rockford Suit MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Ongoing MALLINCKRODT PLC: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Conduct Discovery MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Appeals Tel Aviv District Court's Ruling MDL 2406: Settlement Negotiations Suspended, Triple-S Says METLIFE INC: "Owens" Suit Gets Nationwide Class Certification METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life Still Ongoing METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Suit Still Ongoing METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Suit Underway METLIFE INC: "Lau "Class Action Concluded METLIFE INC: 7th Circuit Revives "Newman" Class Action METLIFE INC: Dismissed from "Miller" Class Suit METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Suit Conditionally Certified MICHAEL C KOEHN: Faces "Long" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin MY BELLY'S: Court Approves Settlement in "Ortiz" Suit MYRIAD GENETICS: Faces "Kessman" Suit in Utah NATUS MEDICAL: Still Defends Against "Costabile" Suit NEW CITY LAWN: Faces "Flores" Suit in S.D. New York NEWPORT CORP: MKS Objects to Subpoena Duces Tecum NICARAGUA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Robertson" Suit NISSAN NORTH: Court Adds Leyva as Named Plaintiff in "Falk" Suit OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Reply in Dextenza Suit Due July 6 OMNI HOTELS: Faces "Samaniego" Suit in S.D. California OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Suit over tZERO Initial Coin Offering PBF HOLDING: "Goldstein" Class Suit Still Ongoing PERRIGO COMPANY: "Schweiger" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed PERRIGO COMPANY: "Keinan" Suit Concluded PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Employees' Education Fund Suit Stayed PERRIGO COMPANY: Attorney General's Opinion Due on May 30 PHH CORP: 3 Merger-Related Suits Filed in New Jersey PURDUE PHARMA: Faces National Roofers Suit in D. Arizona QUANTUM CORP: Court Extends CMC, Related Deadlines in "Lazan" SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West-Hopson Suit Still Pending SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Continues to Defend Lanier Trust Suit SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Faces Morning Song Bird Food Litigation SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Initial Settlement Reached in EZ Seed Suit SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes Suit Underway in Hawaii SPRINT CORP: Bid to Enforce "McGlon" Deal Denied STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA: Ct. Strikes All Class Claims in "Osegueda" SUNPOWER CORP: California Class Action Dismissed TD AMERITRADE: Order Routing-Related Suits Still Ongoing TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Aequitas Securities Litigation TRINITY HEATING: Ct. Denies Bids to Dismiss "Boger" Suit TURNBULL & ASSER: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed "Gonzales" With Leave to Amend UNION BANKSHARES: "Rowe" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed "Gonzales" With Leave to Amend UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Drop Teamsters' Suit Pending USANA HEALTH: Bid to Drop "Rumbaugh" Suit Shelved VONAGE HOLDINGS: Merkin & Smith, et al. Suit Still Ongoing WESTERN DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Suit WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Revised Briefing Sched in "Rushing" OK'd WILLIS TOWERS: Bid to Dismiss Proxy Litigation Pending WILLIS TOWERS: Faces City of Fort Myers Pension Fund Suit WILLIS TOWERS: Regents' Bid for Lead Plaintiff Pending WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement in "Sanchez" Litigation Now Final ZIMMER BIOMET: Continues to Defend "Shah" Suit in Indiana ********* A&B INSURANCE: Settlement in "Youngman" Has Preliminary Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JIM YOUNGMAN and ROBERT ALLEN, Plaintiffs, v. A&B INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-1478- Orl-41GJK (M.D. Fla.), Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Second Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly submitted a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grants the Renewed Motion and enters the Plaintiffs' proposed Preliminary Approval Order. The parties filed a Joint Notice of Non- Objection to the Report and Recommendation. After a de novo review, Judge Mendoza agrees with the analysis in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore he adopted and confirmed the Report and Recommendation, and made a part of the Order. He granted the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion. The Judge will enter the Plaintiffs' proposed Preliminary Approval Order as a separate docket entry. A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/LfsQMH from Leagle.com. Jim Youngman, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Paronich -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Edward A. Broderick -- ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew P. McCue -- mmccue@massattorneys.net- Law Office of Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice & Phillip T. Howard, Howard & Associates, PA. Robert Allen, Plaintiff, presented by Edward A. Broderick, Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew P. McCue, Law Office of Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice, Phillip T. Howard, Howard & Associates, PA & Anthony Paronich, Broderick & Paronich, P.C. A&B Insurance and Financial, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina Marie Kennedy -- ckennedy@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP & Michael D. Leffel -- mleffel@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP, pro hac vice. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Discovery Ongoing in Surfside Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that parties in the case, Surfside Non-Surgical Orthopedics, P.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., are engaged in limited jurisdictional discovery. On January 25, 2018, a complaint was filed in Surfside Non- Surgical Orthopedics, P.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00566, in the Northern District of Illinois. This is a purported class action lawsuit related to a January 18, 2018 ransomware attack, and alleges the following counts: (1) negligence, gross negligence and negligence per se; (2) breach of contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; and (5) violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of customers seeking damages from Allscripts. The parties are currently engaged in limited jurisdictional discovery. Allscripts expects to respond to the complaint after this discovery is completed. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. delivers information technology ("IT") solutions and services to help healthcare organizations achieve optimal clinical, financial and operational results. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Postle" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case, REID POSTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07179 (N.D. Ill.). Postle, brings the putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), against AIC. Postle complains that AIC violated the TCPA by using an autodialer to make unsolicited and pre-recorded sales calls for non-emergency purposes to the cellular phones of Postle and others in the class Postle proposes to represent. Postle alleges he received one such call. In his complaint, Postle alleges the call harmed him by violating his privacy, subjecting him to an annoying and harassing call that deprived him of the legitimate use of his cell phone while he dealt with the call. In his response brief, Postle explains that the call harmed him by depleting his cell phone battery, wasting his time, and creating a risk of personal injury due to interruption and distraction. The Defendant moves to dismiss. In support of its motion to dismiss, AIC argues Postle's allegations concerning the single phone call are insufficient to establish a concrete injury necessary to assert Article III standing. AIC argues that any injury from the single call is de minimis and incapable of conferring standing, as well as self-inflicted because Postle chose to spend time answering the call and obtaining information about the caller. AIC additionally argues Postle's intangible injuries are not personal and distinct because they are shared by all victims of TCPA violations. Lastly, AIC argues that because Postle was not charged for the call, he cannot base his claim upon Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA. Judge Alonso is not persuaded by AIC's contention that because Postle alleges he received only one call, he alleges at most a de minimis injury insufficient to confer standing. AIC's argument that any injury from the call was self-inflicted is also unconvincing. The alleged harm occurred when Postle received an unsolicited incoming call, for non-emergency purposes, that resulted in him answering the phone and waiting on the line for somebody to speak. Any subsequent action, by Postle or anyone else, does not eliminate that claimed injury. Further, the Judge holds that AIC is incorrect in stating Postle's intangible injuries are not personal and distinct because every victim of a TCPA violation incurs that injury. A TCPA violation imparts on an individual victim intangible harm -- a violation of his or her privacy -- which is personally felt by that victim. Although other TCPA violations impart on other victims the same kind of harm, the harm from each call is distinct to each victim. Lastly, contrary to AIC's argument, Postle may assert his TCPA claim under Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) even if he was not charged for the call because he lacks a limited minute cell phone plan. As the Judge notes, tangible, economic harm is not required to establish standing under the TCPA. The intangible harm -- intrusion upon one's privacy -- is sufficient in and of itself. Accordingly, Postle's allegations are sufficient to establish Article III standing. For these reasons, Judge Alonso denied AIC's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/KHvqaa from Leagle.com. Reid Postle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke -- aburke@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC, Andrew Richard Kaufman -- akaufman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Daniel M. Hutchinson -- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Matthew R. Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co. LPA & Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr. -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co., Lpa. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Mark Levin -- LEVINMJBALLARDSPAHR.CO -- Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel L. Delnero -- DELNERODBALLARDSPAHR.CO -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Emilia Luisa McKee Vassallo -- MCKEEVASSALLOEBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac vice, Kristine Marie Schanbacher -- kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Philip Neil Yannella -- YANNELLAPBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Dechert LLP. ALTISOURCE ASSET: Appeal in Retirement System's Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the appeal from a court decision in the lawsuit by the City of Cambridge Retirement System remains pending. On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants Altisource Asset Management Corporation (AAMC), the company's former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's relationship and transactions with Front Yard, Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A., Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen Financial Corporation, including allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii) that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only defendants who have been served with the complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff, and lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015. AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and on April 6, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and, at the same time, filed a proposed first amended consolidated complaint. AAMC and Mr. Erbey opposed the motion, and on July 5, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order denying with prejudice the motion of the Plaintiff for leave to file the first amended consolidated complaint. On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to the federal district court's April 6, 2017 memorandum and order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, the April 6, 2017 order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and the July 5, 2017 order denying with prejudice Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the first amendment consolidated complaint in the matter. Altisource Asset Management said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on September 18, 2017, Appellant filed its appeal brief, and Defendants filed their reply brief on October 18, 2017. Appellant's response to Defendant's reply brief was due on November 15, 2017. In its recent quarterly report, Altisource Asset Management disclosed that briefing on the appeal motion was completed on November 15, 2017. Oral argument on the appeal had been scheduled for May 24, 2018. Altisource Asset Management said "We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any." Altisource Asset Management Corporation, an asset management company, provides portfolio management and corporate governance services to institutional investors in the United States. APOLLO GLOBAL: "McEvoy" Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that a bankruptcy court has granted a motion to correct, and entered an order to that effect on April 24, 2018. On August 3, 2017, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against AGM, Gareth Turner (an Apollo Partner) and Mark Beith (a former Apollo Principal) by Michael McEvoy on behalf of a class of current and former employees of subsidiaries of CEVA Group, LLC ("CEVA Group") who purchased restricted Class A shares in CEVA Investment Limited ("CIL"), the former parent company of CEVA Group. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to and defrauded the plaintiffs by inducing them to purchase shares in CIL and subsequently participating in a debt restructuring of CEVA Group in which shareholders of CIL did not receive a recovery. The complaint purports to seek damages in excess of EUR14 million. On October 18, 2017, the bankruptcy trustee for CIL filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to prevent Mr. McEvoy and his counsel from continuing to prosecute the Florida action on the basis that the relevant claims belong to the CIL bankruptcy estate. On October 18, 2017, the bankruptcy trustee for CIL filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to prevent Mr. McEvoy and his counsel from continuing to prosecute the Florida action on the basis that the relevant claims belong to the CIL bankruptcy estate. On November 21, 2017, the Florida court granted the parties' joint motion to stay the case pending resolution of the CIL bankruptcy trustee's motion to enforce the automatic stay, staying the case until further Order. On February 9, 2018, the bankruptcy court granted the CIL trustee's motion to enforce the automatic stay and enjoined further prosecution of the McEvoy Action (the "February 9 Order"). On February 23, 2018, defendants Beith and Turner filed a motion to correct certain statements in the February 9 Order. Also on February 23, 2018, Mr. McEvoy filed a motion for leave to appeal the February 9 Order. On April 3, 2018, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Mr. McEvoy's appeal of the February 9 Order was stayed pending the resolution of the motion to correct certain statements in that order. On April 12, 2018, the bankruptcy court granted the motion to correct, and entered an order to that effect on April 24, 2018. Based on the allegations in the complaint, Apollo believes that there is no merit to the claims. Additionally, as the case is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this t Founded in 1990, Apollo is a global alternative investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in credit, private equity and real assets with significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the majority of its funds which enables the funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital structure. APOLLO GLOBAL: ClubCorp Shareholders' Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that ClubCorp Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit entitled In re ClubCorp Holdings Shareholder Litigation. Between July 25 and August 15, 2017, plaintiffs filed three purported stockholder class actions in the Nevada state and federal court against ClubCorp Holdings Inc. ("ClubCorp"), the directors of ClubCorp, and AGM, in connection with the proposed acquisition of ClubCorp. The cases in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada were originally captioned Meng v. ClubCorp Holdings, Inc., et al., No. A-17-758912-B ("Meng"); Baum v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759227- C ("Baum"); and Solak v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759987-B ("Solak"). On August 16, 2017, the Meng and Baum actions were consolidated with two other similar actions that did not name AGM as a defendant. The consolidated action is captioned In re ClubCorp Holdings Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-17-758912-B ("In re ClubCorp"). On September 21, 2017, the Solak action was consolidated into In re ClubCorp. On October 12, 2017, plaintiffs in In re ClubCorp filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint purports to assert claims against the directors of ClubCorp for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and candor owed to the plaintiff and the public stockholders of ClubCorp. The complaint includes allegations that the directors, among other things, agreed to a transaction at an unreasonably low price, failed to take the necessary steps to maximize stockholder value, gave preferential severance benefits to certain executives, agreed to preclusive deal protection provisions, and included materially incomplete and misleading information in the proxy statement recommending that stockholders vote in favor of the acquisition. The complaint also purports to assert a claim against AGM for aiding and abetting the directors' purported breach of fiduciary duty. On November 15, 2017, another plaintiff with separate counsel filed a motion to intervene, attaching a proposed complaint in intervention containing similar allegations but asserting claims only against ClubCorp and its directors, not AGM. On December 19, 2017, a hearing was held in which the motion to intervene was denied. On January 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On February 23, 2018, AGM, ClubCorp, and the ClubCorp directors filed motions to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss. On April 20, 2018, defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made. Founded in 1990, Apollo is a leading global alternative investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in credit, private equity and real assets with significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the majority of its funds which enables the funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital structure. APOLLO GLOBAL: Asks Court to Strike Class Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the defendants have asked the court to strike plaintiffs' class action claim and to pursue their arbitration claim individually. On February 9, 2018, plaintiffs Joseph M. Dropp, Mary E. Dropp, Robert Levine, Susan Levine, and Kaarina Pakka filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against Apollo Management VIII, L.P. ("Management VIII"), Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM") and Diamond Resorts International, Inc. ("Diamond") and several of its affiliates and executives. Plaintiffs, who allege that they bought vacation interest points from Diamond, allege that the points are securities and that defendants violated federal securities laws by selling the points without registering them as securities. Plaintiffs also assert a "control person" claim against Management VIII and AGM. Plaintiffs assert their claims on their own behalf and on behalf of a purported class of Diamond customers who bought vacation interest points over the last three years. They seek injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from continuing to market and sell unregistered securities, the right to rescind their purchases, and unspecified compensatory damages. On April 11, 2018, Defendants filed motions to sever Ms. Pakka's claims from the claims of the other plaintiffs and to transfer those claims to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. In regard to the other plaintiffs, Defendants filed motions to compel those plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims; to strike their class action claim and to pursue their arbitration claim individually, rather than jointly; and to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, stay it pending arbitration. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Founded in 1990, Apollo is a leading global alternative investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in credit, private equity and real assets with significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the majority of its funds which enables the funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital structure. APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit over ADT IPO -------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing four shareholder class action suits in connection to the initial public offering ("IPO") of ADT Inc. Four substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits related to the January 19, 2018 initial public offering ("IPO") of ADT Inc. ("ADT") common stock were filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March and April 2018. The actions are entitled Goldstrand Investments Inc. v. ADT Inc., Krebsbach v. ADT Inc., Katz v. ADT Inc., and Sweet v. ADT Inc. Plaintiffs in each case allege the purchase of ADT common stock in or traceable to the IPO or "pursuant to" ADT's registration statement, assert claims for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"), and seek to represent a class of similarly situated shareholders. Each of the complaints names ADT and various ADT officers, directors and IPO underwriters, including Apollo Global Securities, LLC, as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the 1933 Act because the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the IPO purportedly were false and misleading in that they allegedly misled investors with respect to material litigation involving ADT, ADT's efforts to protect its intellectual property, competitive pressures ADT faced, ADT's customer acquisition costs, and false-alarm pressures. Apollo Global said "Because these actions are in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time." Founded in 1990, Apollo is a leading global alternative investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented investment manager in credit, private equity and real assets with significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the majority of its funds which enables the funds to invest opportunistically across a company's capital structure. APPLE INC: "Brody" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Ysroel Brody, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00080, (E.D. N.Y., January 5, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 25, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02461. Plaintiffs seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these devices, restitution of illegally acquired money, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone. Brody owns an iPhone 6, which, after upgrading updates issued and downloaded onto his phone, resulted in delayed response in launching applications, severe delays in typing functions and other delays and malfunctions. Defendant is manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name "iPhone." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Jay I. Brody, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Tel: (845) 356-2570 Email: jbrody@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com APPLE INC: "LaNasa" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Alfred LaNasa, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-17878, (E.D. La., December 28, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 25, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-02468. LaNasa seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these devices, restitution of illegally acquired money, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone. Defendant is manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name "iPhone." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq. Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN 12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 Email: krogers@stecklerlaw.com bruce@stecklerlaw.com Apple Inc. is represented by: Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr. Matthew J. Averill, Esq. IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 310-2100 Fax: (504) 310-2101 Email: qurquhart@irwinllc.com maverill@irwinllc.com APPLE INC: "Mallh" Warranty Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Victor Mallh, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00051, (E.D. N.Y., January 4, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 25, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-02462. Mallh seeks redress for Apple's failure to warn iPhone SE, iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and iPhone 7 Plus users that certain iOS updates could negatively and significantly impact iPhone performance. Apple falsely represented to consumers that such updates would increase iPhone performance. Defendant is manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name "iPhone." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Joseph Allen, Esq. 120 W Wilson Ave #1135 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (203) 535-4636 Fax: (301) 490-7913 Email: greg@gjallenlaw.com - and - John W. Hermina, Esq. HERMINA LAW GROUP 8327 Cherry Lane Laurel, MD 20707 Tel: (301) 206-3166 Fax: (301) 490-7913 Email: law@herminalaw.com Apple Inc. is represented by: Jillian Nicole London, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (Los Angeles) 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7671 Fax: (213) 229-6671 Email: jlondon@gibsondunn.com APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss "Abouzied" Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. continues to defend a Texas securities class action lawsuit, the company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02399. Applied Optoelectronics said "The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "we see softer than expected demand for our 40G solutions with one of our large customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased demand we expect in 100G." A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead Plaintiff and Levi & Korinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6, 2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously contest the matter. Applied Optoelectronics said "We filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is expected to be completed on May 16, 2018." Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. is a leading, vertically integrated provider of fiber-optic networking products, primarily for four networking end-markets: internet data center, cable television, or CATV, telecommunication, or telecom and fiber-to-the-home, or FTTH. The company is based in Sugar Land, Texas. AUTO ZONE: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Auto Zone, Inc. The case is styled as Marvin Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Auto Zone, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Autozoners, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Autozone Parts, Inc., a Nevada corporation and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01324-JAH-AGS (S.D. Cal., June 18, 2018). AutoZone is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive parts and accessories, the largest in the United States. Founded in 1979, AutoZone has over 6,000 stores across the United States, Mexico, and Brazil.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq. 15615 Alton Pkwy. Suite 175 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (619) 936-4001 The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Archibald, Esq. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (714) 800-7900 Fax: (714) 754-1298 Email: christopher.archibald@ogletreedeakins.com AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: $15M Securities Case Accord Wins Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise J. Casper entered on May 30, 2018, an Order of Final Approval and Final Judgment of the settlement in the case, In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13- 11157-DJC (D. Mass.). Aveo Pharmaceuticals said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of its former officers and directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer, and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013 (the "Class"). This consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, and which no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant. The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing and oral argument, the District Court ruled in the Company's favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the District Court's judgment, which the Company opposed. On January 3, 2017, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal and judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017. On February 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to those alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the Company and certain of the Company's former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. On March 2, 2017, the Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint, and the parties initiated discovery. On June 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on July 27, 2017, the Company filed its response. On July 18, 2017, the District Court entered an order referring the case to alternative dispute resolution. The parties mediated on September 12 and 13, 2017. On December 26, 2017, the parties entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of the lawsuit. On January 29, 2018, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which was filed with the District Court on February 2, 2018. Under the terms of the MOU and Stipulation, AVEO agreed with counsel for the lead plaintiffs to cause certain of AVEO's and the Individual Defendants' insurance carriers to provide the Class with a cash payment of $15.0 million, which includes the cash amount of any attorneys' fees or litigation expenses that the District Court may award lead plaintiffs' counsel and costs lead plaintiffs incur in administering and providing notice of the settlement. Additionally, AVEO agreed to issue to the Class the Settlement Warrants for the purchase of 2.0 million shares of AVEO common stock exercisable from the date of issue until the expiration of a one-year period after the date of issue at an exercise price equal to the closing price on December 22, 2017, the trading day prior to the execution of the MOU, which was $3.00 ("the "Settlement Warrants"). On February 8, 2018, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the terms of the Stipulation. The Stipulation is subject to final approval by the District Court. The District Court set a Final Approval Hearing for May 30, 2018. The Company has agreed to use its best efforts to issue and deliver the Settlement Warrants within ten business days following the effective date of the final approval of the Stipulation. Additional information on the case is available at: https://www.aveosecuritieslitigation.com/ Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. B RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Suit vs. MLV & Co. --------------------------------------------------------- B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the putative class action suit against MLV & Co. is still ongoing. On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016 naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR, as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging claims under the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated. The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints, continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of approximately $151.0 million. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. In August 2017, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Section 12 claims and found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a corrective disclosure prior to August 6, 2015, when an SEC civil action was announced. Defendants' answer was filed on September 25, 2017. B. Riley Financial said "Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller." B. Riley Financial, Inc. provides financial services and solutions in North America, Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments: Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal, and Principal Investments - United Online. The company is based in Woodland Hills, California. BABAD MANAGEMENT: Court Approves Settlement in "Penafiel" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement in the case, LILY PENAFIEL, Plaintiff, v. BABAD MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 4629 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.). The Plaintiff commenced the action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover unpaid straight time and overtime premium pay. The Plaintiff also asserted claims that the Defendants failed to keep certain records and to provide certain notices under the NYLL. The Plaintiff brought the action as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to the FLSA claims, but the parties reached a settlement prior to the matter being conditionally certified. The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' joint application to approve a proposed settlement agreement that they have reached. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' residential building management company from approximately October 2012 until Aug. 14, 2016. She alleges that she was compensated at a base hourly rate of $11 per hour from approximately October 2012 through approximately July 2015, $11.75 per hour from approximately August 2015 through approximately April 2016 and $12.75 from approximately May 2016 until the end of her employment on Aug. 14, 2016. The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment, the Defendants would regularly engage in "time-shaving", i.e., requiring her to work off the clock for 40 minutes per day without compensation. She also claims that she worked, on average, approximately 43.33 hours per week, but that the Defendants did not compensate her at all for the overtime hours. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' wage and hour statements were fraudulent because they did not accurately reflect the number of hours she worked each week. She claims that she is entitled to $31,894.641 in total damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest. The Defendants deny the Plaintiff's claims. They appear to contend that the Plaintiff was not authorized to work more than 40 hours per week and, thus, is not entitled to any overtime premium pay. They argue that the Plaintiff was paid properly and received all compensation owed to her. The parties agreed to a settlement in the amount of $7,500. They also agree that the Plaintiff's counsel will retain $500 for out of pocket costs and $2,333.33, or one-third of the remainder, as a fee. Reasonably, a court should consider the totality of circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors: (1) the plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which the settlement will enable the parties to avoid anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) whether the settlement agreement is the product of arm's length bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion. Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that the settlement here satisfies these criteria. First, although the settlement fund after deduction of fees and costs represents approximately 15% of the Plaintiff's total alleged damages, exclusive of interest, that fact does not render the proposed settlement deficient. Second, the proposed settlement will entirely avoid the burden, expense and aggravation of litigation. Third, the settlement will enable the Plaintiff to avoid the risk of litigation. Fourth, the counsel represents that the settlement is the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel and that the counsel advocated zealously on behalf of their respective clients during negotiations. Fifth there are no factors that suggest the existence of fraud. The proposed settlement agreement also contains a release and a mutual non-disparagement clause. Finally, the settlement agreement provides that $2,333.33 will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel as contingency fees. This amount is equal to approximately 33.3% of the settlement fund, exclusive of out-of- pocket costs. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge approved the settlement in the matter. In light of the settlement, he dismissed with prejudice and without costs the action. He respectfully requested the Clerk to mark the matter closed. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/NVKV3n from Leagle.com. Lily Penafiel, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig -- info@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. Babad Management Co., LLC, Sheldon Becker & Chaim Babad, Defendants, represented by Jason Andrew Grossman, Turek Roth Grossman LLP, Gaddi Goren, Turek Roth Grossman LLP & Zachary C. Hall, Turek Roth Grossman LLP. BANK OF NEW YORK: Depositary Receipt Litigation Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the firm continues to defend the so-called Depositary Receipt Litigation. Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The claims are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The lawsuits have been consolidated into two suits that are pending in federal court in the Southern District of New York. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. * * * The Bank of New York Mellon said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the remaining FINRA action has been resolved and dismissed. In late December 2005, Pershing LLC ("Pershing") became a clearing firm for Stanford Group Co. ("SGC"), a registered broker-dealer that was part of a group of entities ultimately controlled by R. Allen Stanford ("Stanford"). Stanford International Bank ("SIB"), also controlled by Stanford, issued certificates of deposit ("CDs"). Some investors allegedly wired funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs. In 2009, the SEC charged Stanford with operating a Ponzi scheme in connection with the sale of CDs, and SGC was placed into receivership. Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed 15 lawsuits against Pershing that are pending in Texas, including two putative class actions. The purchasers allege that Pershing, as SGC's clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert contractual, statutory and common law claims. The remaining FINRA action has been resolved and dismissed. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation provides a range of financial products and services to institutions, corporations, and high net worth individuals in the United States and internationally. The company operates through two segments, Investment Management and Investment Services. BBVA COMPASS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the case, In re Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Securities Litigation, has taken an appeal from the court's decision granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. In January 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Securities Litigation, wherein the plaintiffs challenge statements made in registration materials and prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with eight securities offerings of stock and notes issued by Plains GP Holdings and Plains All American Pipeline and underwritten by BSI, among others. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. On April 2, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches, under the trade name BBVA Compass. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a United States financial holding company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA COMPASS: St. Lucie Firefighters' Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that BBVA Securities Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al. In October 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al., wherein the plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its officers and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including BSI) made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus related to a securities offering. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches, under the trade name BBVA Compass. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a United States financial holding company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA COMPASS: Continues to Defend "Hossfeld" Suit ------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action suit filed by Robert Hossfeld. In December 2016, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Robert Hossfeld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass and MSR Group, LLC, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the context of customer satisfaction survey calls to the cell phones of individuals who have not given, or who have withdrawn, consent to receive calls on their cell phones. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches, under the trade name BBVA Compass. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a United States financial holding company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA COMPASS: Suit by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that BBVA Securities Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., et al. In August 2017, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., et al., wherein the plaintiffs allege that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva"), its officers and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including BSI) made inaccurate and misleading statements in the offering materials related to Teva's role in an alleged conspiracy to inflate the market prices of certain generic drug products. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches, under the trade name BBVA Compass. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a United States financial holding company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA COMPASS: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Bellissimo" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties reached an agreement in principle in the case, Lara Bellissimo, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. BBVA Compass. In September 2017, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lara Bellissimo, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. BBVA Compass, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the context of collections calls to the cell phones of individuals who were not the individuals that provided the phone numbers to BBVA Compass. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The suit was refiled in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The parties reached a settlement in principle on February 13, 2018 and are in the process of seeking court approval. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches, under the trade name BBVA Compass. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a United States financial holding company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA COMPASS: Faces Lopez-Wright Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is defending against a putative class action suit entitled, Petra Lopez and Colea Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass. In January 2018, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Petra Lopez and Colea Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass, challenging BBVA Compass' assessment of certain overdraft fees. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches, under the trade name BBVA Compass. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a United States financial holding company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA COMPASS: Settlement in Principle Reached in "Andrade" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties have reached a settlement in principle on an individual (non-class) basis in the putative class action suit entitled, Daniel Andrade, Sr. and Elizabeth M. Andrade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. BBVA Compass. In January 2018, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Daniel Andrade, Sr. and Elizabeth M. Andrade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. BBVA Compass and Taherzadeh, PLLC, alleging that BBVA Compass improperly assesses default rate interest on HELOCs prior to default and without prior notice. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. On April 20, 2018, the parties reached a settlement in principle on an individual (non-class) basis. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches, under the trade name BBVA Compass. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a United States financial holding company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA COMPASS: Faces Oklahoma Firefighters Pension Fund Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., BSI, et al. In March 2018, the Company and BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., BSI, et al., alleging that the defendant banks and their named subsidiaries engaged in collusion with respect to the sale of Mexican Government Bonds. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches, under the trade name BBVA Compass. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a United States financial holding company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the district has not yet ruled on motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel in the Kakkar-Rudy consolidated suit. On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14, 2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the same court. The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities during the period from May 8, 2017 through January 30, 2018. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess BPX-501 as an adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits under the Kakkar action and motions were filed by putative class members for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. The District Court has yet to rule on the motions. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing novel cellular immunotherapies for various forms of cancer, including both hematological cancers and solid tumors, as well as orphan inherited blood disorders. The company is based in Houston, Texas. BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Klein" Suit -------------------------------------------- Biocryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Melvyn Klein v. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On March 6, 2018, a purported stockholder of BioCryst filed a putative class action lawsuit against BioCryst, the BioCryst board of directors, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Idera"), a Delaware corporation, Nautilus Holdco, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of BioCryst ("Holdco"), Island Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco ("Merger Sub A"), and Boat Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco ("Merger Sub B") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Melvyn Klein v. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00358-UNA. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the preliminary Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission allegedly contains material omissions and misstatements. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Mergers until additional disclosures are made, and damages. The defendants believe that the action is without merit. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biotechnology company, designs, optimizes, and develops small molecule drugs that block key enzymes involved in the pathogenesis of diseases. The company is based in Durham, North Carolina. BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against "Raatz" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Biocryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that on March 14, 2018, a purported stockholder of Idera filed a putative class action lawsuit against Idera, the Idera board of Directors, BioCryst, Holdco, Merger Sub A and Merger Sub B in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Lisa Raatz, v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, Cast No. 1:18-cv-10485. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated sections 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and section 20(a) of the Exchanges Act because the preliminary Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission allegedly contains material omissions and misstatements. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Mergers until additional disclosures are made, and damages. The defendants believe that the action is without merit. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biotechnology company, designs, optimizes, and develops small molecule drugs that block key enzymes involved in the pathogenesis of diseases. The company is based in Durham, North Carolina. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Summary Judgment Bids in TCPA Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, Plaintiff, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00405 (SRU) (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the U.S. District Court for the District Connecticut granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Boehringer, Medica, Inc., and John Does 1-10 for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. Physicians Healthsource is a medical clinic based in Cincinnati, Ohio; it alleges that a fax sent to one of its doctors by the defendants was an "unsolicited advertisement" that violated the TCPA. On April 6, 2010, Dr. Jose Martinez -- a general practitioner employed by Physicians Healthsource in Cincinnati, Ohio -- received a fax from Defendant Medica. The fax invited Dr. Martinez to an awareness dinner meeting on April 28, 2010 at a McCormick & Schmick's restaurant in Cincinnati, sponsored by Defendant Boehringer and featuring a presentation by board- certified obstetrician/gynecologist David Portman. The remainder of the fax concerns logistics, such as the time, date, and location of the dinner meaning, and the process of registration. Around the time of the dinner meeting, Boehringer was seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for a new drug, flibanserin. Flibanserin was intended as a treatment for FSD/HSDD. The fax sent to Dr. Martinez does not name any product designed to treat FSD/HSDD, however -- in fact, it does not mention treatment of the disorders at all. On June 18, 2010, an FDA advisory panel recommended against approving flibanserin, and Boehringer halted development of the drug. Boehringer subsequently sold its rights in flibanserin to Sprout Pharmaceuticals, which (following FDA approval) brought flibanserin to market under the trade name Addyi. Boehringer has never commercially produced flibanserin. On March 30, 2014, Physicians Healthsource sued the Defendants for violating the TCPA by faxing an unsolicited advertisement without a proper opt-out notice. Physicians Healthsource brought a putative class action on behalf of all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of the action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of the Defendants, and (3) did not display a proper opt-out notice. Medica and Boehringer moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on May 21, 2014, and May 22, 2014, respectively. They argued that Physicians Healthsource failed to state a claim because the fax was not an advertisement as defined by the TCPA. On Jan. 12, 2015, Judge Underhill granted the motions to dismiss, reasoning that nothing in the fax indicates that the dinner was a pretext for pitching a Boehringer product or service related to FSD/HSDD or links the potential registrant with Boehringer's other products and services. Physicians Healthsource appealed, and the Second Circuit vacated and remanded for discovery and further proceedings. On March 9, 2017, the Court received the Court of Appeals' mandate and reopened the case. On Aug. 30, 2017, the Judge held a Rule 16 pretrial conference with the parties, at which he determined to resolve the Defendants' proposed motions for summary judgment against Physicians Healthsource's individual claim prior to a motion for class certification. He directed the parties to begin discovery, appropriate subjects of which might include emails, agreements, and other materials relating to the April 2010 meeting in Cincinnati that is the basis for Physicians Healthsource's individual claim. At the Rule 16 pretrial conference, he also scheduled a hearing on the Defendants' anticipated motions for summary judgment for March 27, 2018. Medica and Boehringer separately moved for summary judgment on Feb. 9, 2018. Physicians Healthsource filed a combined opposition on March 7, 2018. Judge Unnderhill finds that Physicians Healthsource would interpret the TCPA as imposing a per se ban on faxed invitations to free seminars, a reading that the Second Circuit already rejected. Reasoning that not every unsolicited fax promoting a free seminar violates the TCPA, the Second Circuit invited Boehringer to rebut at the summary judgment stage with evidence showing that it did not feature its products or services at the seminar. Boehringer has now done so. The undisputed evidence shows that the seminar did not advertise the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services. Therefore, the faxed invitation was not an "advertisement," and the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For these reasons, the Judge grants the motions for summary judgment. The Clerk will enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Memorandum of Decision is available at https://is.gd/6vZ23S from Leagle.com. Physicians Healthsource, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan Y. Bellin, Bellin & Associates LLC, Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice, Glenn L. Hara -- gara@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice, Ross M. Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice, Wallace C. Solberg -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Ryan Michael Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, Defendants, represented by Bryan James Orticelli -- borticelli@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP & Thomas D. Goldberg - - tgoldberg@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP. Medica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew H. Geelan -- MGeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue, Durham & Noonan, P.C.. CARDINAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Opioid Related Suits Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that motions to dismiss in a number of lawsuits over the sale of Opioid drugs will be briefed from June through August 2018 and that three lawsuits will proceed to trial in March 2019 depending on the court's ruling on those motions. Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including the company, have been named as defendants in hundreds of lawsuits relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. These lawsuits have been filed in various federal, state, and other courts by a variety of plaintiffs, which are primarily counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from 46 states. Plaintiffs also include four state attorneys general, unions and other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare providers. Of these lawsuits, 21 are purported class actions. The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a variety of legal theories including various common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment as well as violations of controlled substance laws and various other statutes. Many also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains and other entities as defendants. The vast majority of these lawsuits have been filed in U.S. federal court and have been transferred for consolidated pre- trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In April 2018, the court, among other things, ordered that motions to dismiss in a number of these lawsuits be briefed from June through August 2018 and that three lawsuits proceed to trial in March 2019 depending on the court's ruling on those motions. As part of these proceedings, the company has been discussing with various parties and other stakeholders, including state attorneys general, possible prospective non-monetary injunctive relief and other solutions that the company and others in the healthcare system either have already undertaken or may undertake in the future to help alleviate the national opioid epidemic. Cardinal Health said "We are vigorously defending ourselves in all of these opioid lawsuits. Since all of the above-referenced lawsuits are in early stages, we are unable to predict their outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses." Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company worldwide. The company is based in Dublin, Ohio. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sinohu Seeks Approval of Legal Fees & Costs -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Sinohu filed on June 20 a Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs in a class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment Inc. CEC Entertainment Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2018, that on October 10, 2014, former venue General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated current and former General Managers of CEC Entertainment in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment wrongfully classified current and former California General Managers as exempt from overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that CEC Entertainment failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages upon separation from employment, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff also alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses, including for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff's misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a class with respect to Plaintiff's claims that CEC Entertainment had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage. On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. After participating in mediation on April 19, 2017, the parties agreed to settle all of Sinohui's individual and class claims. Pursuant to the basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will grant a complete release to CEC Entertainment on behalf of himself and the class of all claims that he asserted or could have asserted against the Company, based on the facts that gave rise to the certified reimbursement claim in the Sinohui Litigation, in exchange for the Company's settlement payment. On December 13, 2017, the Court entered its order granting preliminary approval of the parties' settlement and setting a final fairness hearing for June 15, 2018. Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff filed his motion for final approval of the parties' settlement on April 27, 2018; the Court then set the motion for hearing on June 15, 2018. The settlement of this lawsuit should be funded and concluded no later than the third quarter of 2018 and will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. The case is captioned, Richard Sinohui v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-02516 (C.D. Cal., December 5, 2014). Judge Josephine L Staton oversees the case. CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and internationally. The company is based in Irving, Texas. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Reached in "French" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ CEC Entertainment Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2018, that Kevin French filed a Notice of Settlement in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California. On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California ("the French Federal Court Lawsuit"), alleging that CEC Entertainment failed to pay overtime wages, failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay wages due upon separation of employment, and failed to reimburse for certain business expenses, including for mileage and personal cell phone usage, in violation of the California Labor Code and federal law, and seeking to certify separate classes on his federal and state claims. On October 30, 2017, the parties conducted a mediation. At the conclusion of the mediation, the parties agreed to settle all of French's class and individual claims. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on November 14, 2017, the Federal Court Lawsuit was dismissed, and on November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a new lawsuit in Superior Court of San Bernadino County, California (the "French State Court Lawsuit"). The French State Court Lawsuit carried forward only the California state law claims alleging a failure to reimburse for business expenses, and sought to certify a class of CEC California Senior Assistant Managers, Assistant Managers, Technical Managers and Assistant Technical Managers who were authorized to drive on behalf of CEC from January 30, 2013 through April 27, 2018. On December 20, 2017, further pursuant to the parties' settlement, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. CEC Entertainment said "We expect that the settlement will be concluded and the case dismissed by the end of the third quarter of 2018. The settlement of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and internationally. The company is based in Irving, Texas. CERRO FLOW: Ill. App. Vacates Good Faith Finding in "Custer" Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARTHA CUSTER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CERRO FLOW PRODUCTS, INC.; PHARMACIA CORPORATION, n/k/a Pharmacia LLC; PHARMACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY LLC; SOLUTIA, INC.; MONSANTO COMPANY; PFIZER, INC.; MONSANTO AG PRODUCTS LLC, n/k/a Monsanto Company; and EASTMAN CHEMICALCOMPANY, Defendants, (Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendant-Appellant; Pharmacia Corporation; Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC; Solutia, Inc.; Monsanto Company; Pfizer, Inc.; Monsanto Ag Products LLC; and Eastman Chemical Company, Defendants-Appellees), Case No. 5-16-0161 (Ill. App.), Judge Judy Cates of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, vacated the orders of the circuit court finding that an aggregate settlement agreement between the 11,546 Plaintiffs and the Defendants was made in "good faith," within the meaning of the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act. The appeal concerns 131 mass tort cases, filed on behalf of the 11,546 Plaintiffs, who alleged that they suffered personal injuries and property damage resulting from exposure to hazardous substances and contaminants emitted from three "release sites" in or near the village of Sauget, Illinois. The release sites were identified as (1) a 90-acre landfill site ("Sauget landfill"), (2) a 314-acre plant operated by one or more of the Monsanto Defendants ("Monsanto facility"), and (3) a parcel of property abutting the Monsanto facility that was owned and operated by Cerro ("Cerro facility"). The litigation began in June 2009, with the filing of 20 cases against the Monsanto Defendants and Cerro. A total of 1022 individuals were named as Plaintiffs in the 2009 cases. The personal injury claims were based on theories of negligence, strict liability/ultrahazardous activity, nuisance, and battery. The Plaintiffs alleged they suffered one or more of the following diseases or conditions: diabetes, hypertension, depression, sinusitis, anemia, endometriosis, fibroid tumors, anxiety, gout, heart disorder, arthritis, hysterectomy, diverticulitis, ovarian cysts, thyroid problems, noncancerous tumors, hypercholesterolemia, upper respiratory infection, heart disease, urinary tract infection, asthma, leukemia, chronic bronchitis, congestive heart failure, emphysema, osteoporosis, stomach disease/disorder, pancytopenia, thrombocytopenia, bone diseases, leucopenia, myelodysplasia, migraines, and various forms of cancer. The property damage claims were based on theories of negligence, nuisance, and trespass. The Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered injury and damage in the form of "cost to remediate" their real property and "diminution in value" of the real property. On Aug. 3, 2010, the parties informed the trial court that they had entered into a tolling agreement, effective June 18, 2010, which provided for a stay of all nondiscovery issues while they attempted to mediate the contested issues. Pursuant to that agreement, the court ordered a stay of the proceedings. Over the next three years, the parties engaged in mediation. The mediation between the Plaintiffs and Monsanto Defendants was apparently successful, concluding in November 2014, with a tentative agreement to settle not only the 2009 cases but also the claims of thousands of other individuals who had not yet filed lawsuits, based upon injuries arising from the same environmental exposure. Cerro was not a party to the proposed settlement, and its mediation efforts with the Plaintiffs ended without an agreement. On June 3, 2014, an additional 111 cases, naming more than 10,000 new Plaintiffs, were filed against Cerro. Because of the pending Settlement Agreement, the Monsanto Defendants were not sued. The allegations in the 2014 cases were similar to those brought against Cerro in the 2009 cases. On June 23, 2014, Cerro filed a motion to lift the stay order in the 2009 cases because its mediation efforts with the Plaintiffs had been unsuccessful. On July 8, 2014, the trial court issued an initial case management order covering the 2009 cases and the 2014 cases. As part of that order, the court lifted the stay as to the claims made against Cerro in the 2009 cases. The court also permitted the Plaintiffs and Cerro to resume discovery and trial preparations for the 2009 cases and the 2014 cases. On Aug. 6, 2015, the Plaintiffs in the 2009 cases filed a motion to establish a "Qualified Settlement Fund" and to appoint Lexco Consulting, LLC as the administrator of the fund. The Plaintiffs represented that the Qualified Settlement Fund satisfied pertinent federal regulations and requested a court order finding that the account and the settlement payment arrangements meet the criteria for a Qualified Settlement Account" under section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code and the corresponding Treasury Regulation. On Aug. 6, 2015, the trial court entered an order in the 2009 cases, granting the motion to establish the Qualified Settlement Fund. The court approved Lexco as the Fund Administrator. On March 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs in the 2009 cases filed motions requesting that the trial court find that their settlement with the Monsanto Defendants was made in good faith, as defined in the Contribution Act, and order the dismissal of those claims with prejudice. On March 29, 2016, the parties appeared in court for the hearing on the Plaintiffs' good-faith motions and Cerro's request for a continuance. Two circuit court judges, Judge Andrew Gleeson and Judge Vincent Lopinot, were assigned to these cases, and they jointly presided over the good-faith hearing. In a written order entered on March 29, 2016, the trial court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a finding of good faith in the 2009 cases and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims against the Monsanto Defendants, with prejudice. The court further ordered that, pursuant to the Contribution Act, any potential liability of the settling Defendants to other tortfeasors was discharged and any and all contribution claims asserted, or that could be asserted, by or against the settling defendants, were barred. On May 19, 2016, Cerro filed a third-party complaint in the 2014 cases, seeking contribution against the Monsanto Defendants. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a good-faith finding in the 2014 cases. They asked the court to find that the Nov. 21, 2014, settlement was made in good faith and to dismiss, with prejudice, all contribution claims asserted against the settling defendants. They also requested an order discharging any potential liability of the Monsanto Defendants to other tortfeasors and barring all contribution claims that have been asserted, or that could have been asserted, by or against the Monsanto Defendants. On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs' motion was called for a hearing before Judge Gleeson and Judge Lopinot. The court entered a written order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a good-faith finding. It further ordered that the settlement agreement and each release, as well as the transcript of the hearing on the matter, will be filed under seal. Finally, it found there was no just reason to delay an appeal of the order. Thus, the Monsanto Defendants were completely discharged from any liability to Cerro. The confidential Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Monsanto Defendants is dated Nov. 21, 2014. In exchange for executing the Release, each living Plaintiff or claimant received $600. The Settlement Agreement identifies four additional settlement funds, and establishes protocols and procedures for determining whether the Monsanto Defendants will fund them. According to the terms of the settlement, the Monsanto Defendants agreed to transfer an additional $300,000 into the Trust to create Additional Settlement Fund No. 1. This fund is intended to compensate 600 living Plaintiffs, who are selected at random and who agree to provide a blood sample for testing. Additional Settlement Fund No. 2 is intended to provide additional compensation calculated pursuant to the six tiers of value set forth in exhibit No. 9. Recovery of monies from Additional Settlement Fund No. 2 is limited to the living Plaintiffs. Although the families of the 1,370 deceased Plaintiffs were not included in the initial Base Settlement Fund, the settlement provides that any monies paid into the Additional Settlement Fund No. 3 would be used to compensate these claimants. Additional Settlement Fund No. 4 is a fund intended to compensate the living Plaintiffs who are able to provide proof of ownership of a parcel or parcels of real estate located within a six-mile radius of the Monsanto facility. The Settlement Agreement identifies 4000 properties whose owners are potentially eligible to recover from Additional Settlement Fund No. 4. Thus, if 90% of the eligible Plaintiffs sign the Release and indemnity agreements, then the Monsanto Defendants would be required to pay an amount equal to 5% of Additional Settlement Fund No. 2 to fund Additional Settlement Fund No. 4. The Settlement Agreement also provides that the percentage multiplier (5%) will be reduced pro rata by the percentage of owners below the 90% threshold who fail to participate or provide the necessary documentation. As with Additional Settlement Fund Nos. 2 and 3, the Settlement Agreement does not define or describe how the Trustees of the Trust will allocate any money among the Plaintiffs who have asserted property damage claims. On appeal, Cerro challenges the trial court's findings that the aggregate settlement of the 2009 cases, and the 2014 cases, was made in "good faith" within the meaning of the Contribution Act. It timely appealed from the orders entered March 29, 2016, in the 2009 cases, and the orders entered June 23, 2016, in the 2014 cases. Subsequently, the appeals were consolidated for purposes of argument and decision. After considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding this settlement, and the unique facts in the case, Judge Cates finds that the settling parties failed to meet their burden to make a preliminary showing that the settlement was legally valid and that the terms of the Settlement Agreement satisfied the "equitable apportionment policy" underlying the Contribution Act. In this case, the trial court should have examined the Settlement Agreement to determine whether it was obtained with informed consent, and without internal conflicts of interests, before considering whether the settling defendants were entitled to any relief under the Contribution Act. Such scrutiny was necessary to reduce the potential for inequity and abuses that may arise from an aggregate settlement. Therefore, the trial court's determination that the Settlement Agreement was entered in good faith was without foundation and, as such, was an abuse of discretion. For those reasons, the Judge vacated the trial court's good-faith orders and remanded these cases for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion. On remand, the Judge ordered the settling parties to make a preliminary showing that the Settlement Agreement is a legally valid agreement and that the settlement is consistent with the Contribution Act's policy favoring equitable apportionment of damages among joint tortfeasors. As she noted, the settling parties must provide some information concerning the contested issues related to liability, damages, and defenses; the projected total sum of the settlement; and the method of apportionment of settlement proceeds among the individual Plaintiffs. In considering the motions for good-faith findings, the trial court must thoroughly review the Settlement Agreement and attached exhibits, the Trust Agreement, and the Release. In addition, the trial court must consider whether the Plaintiffs' counsel made full disclosures and provided adequate representation to each Plaintiff and whether each individual Plaintiff was fully informed of all material terms of the settlement. In addition, the Judge directed that the court must also consider whether provisions in the Settlement Agreement and the Trust Agreement present conflicts of interest between counsel and the Plaintiffs and among Plaintiffs and, if so, whether they were adequately informed of the conflicts and waived them. It must also determine whether the Plaintiffs were aware of the attorney fees and costs and how those fees and costs would be assessed and paid. In essence, the trial court must consider whether the individual Plaintiffs received sufficient information to make an informed choice to settle their claims. The Judge noted that when the trial court issued its order establishing the Qualified Settlement Fund, the court retained continuing jurisdiction over the Fund, the Trustees, and the Fund Administrator, and directed the Trustees, with the assistance of the Fund Administrator, to jointly prepare an accounting detailing all distributions from the Qualified Settlement Fund. On remand, the trial court may consider, in its discretion, whether to require the Fund Administrator to provide an accounting of funds distributed to date, whether to require periodic status reports, and whether the Plaintiffs' counsel, as the Trustees, should be required to supply a final accounting of the apportionment and distribution of all of the settlement funds for the court's review. As is apparent from her discussion, Judge Cates there is much to be considered before the trial court entertains any motion seeking relief under the Contribution Act. She recognized that this was a difficult case, and their comments should not be viewed as a rebuke of the trial court's action. Rather, as the trial court indicated, the nature of the case and the circumstances of the settlement were complex, and there was little precedent to provide guidance. Additionally, she said her comments regarding the Settlement Agreement should not be construed as a condemnation of mass actions or aggregate settlements. The ability to join claimants and claims through procedural joinder is vital to the efficient use of judicial resources and the equitable settlement of mass torts. That said, the counsel involved in joined actions must act with transparency so that nothing remains hidden from the court and their individual clients. She noted that unlike the state courts, the federal courts have a structure for dealing with nonclass aggregate settlements. As noted, there are currently no Illinois statutes or rules, aside from the Rules of Professional Conduct, to guide and inform practitioners and the courts in addressing the unique issues presented by the aggregate settlement of mass torts. Mass tort actions are becoming more common, and perhaps, based on the concerns raised in the case, the state supreme court will consider whether the implementation of additional rules regarding good-faith proceedings in mass tort cases might be of benefit to the trial courts and practitioners. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/wnUjCh from Leagle.com. Stephen L. Agin, 909 W. Ohio Street, Unit 9, Chicago, IL 60642; Mark A. Kircher -- mark.kircher@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady, LLP, 411 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2350, Milwaukee, WI 53202-4426; Lindsey T. Millman -- lindsey.millman@quarles.com -- E. King Poor IV -- king.poor@quarles.com -- Anthony P. Steinike -- anthony.steinike@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady, LLP, 300 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60654; Thomas R. Ysursa, Becker, Hoerner, Thompson & Ysursa, P.C., 5111 W., Attorneys for Appellant. Main Street, Belleville, IL 62226, Attorneys for Appellant. Clyde L. Kuehn -- ckuehn@mmrltd.com -- 120 W. Main Street, Suite 122, Belleville, IL 62220 (attorney for Martha Custer, et al.); Bruce N. Cook, Bernard J. Ysursa, Cook, Ysursa, Bartholomew, Brauer & Shevlin, Ltd., 12 W. Lincoln Street, Belleville, IL 62220-2085; Charles R. Hobbs II -- rhobbs@lathropgage.com -- Patricia L. Silva -- psilva@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Pierre Laclede Center, 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 500, Clayton, MO 63105; Joseph G. Nassif, Nassif Law Firm, 10701 Kingsbridge Estates Dr., Creve Coeur, MO 63141; Robert J. Sprague -- rsprague@spragueurban.com -- Sprague & Urban, 26 E. Washington Street, Belleville, IL 62220 (attorneys for Eastman Chemical Co.; Monsanto AG Products LLC; Monsanto Co.; Pfizer, Inc.; Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC; Pharmacia Corp.; Solutia, Inc.) Attorneys for Appellees. COUNTRY CLUB: Clarification Order in "Mickles" FLSA Suit Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANDREA MICKLES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant, LAUREN HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, SHANA MCALLISTER, APRIL LEMON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, JOY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. COUNTRY CLUB INC., d.b.a. Goldrush Showbar, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee, Case No. 16-17484 (11th Cir.), Judge Susan H. Black of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's denial of conditional certification; (ii) vacated the district court's clarification order; and (iii) remanded with instructions for the district court to either (1) dismiss the Appellants from the case without prejudice to refile, or (2) go forward with the Appellants' individual cases since discovery has been completed. In April 2014, Mickles filed a complaint against Country Club, alleging she was proceeding on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated employees in a collective action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Mickles alleged Country Club had improperly classified her and other employees as independent contractors and, as a result, failed to compensate them at the minimum wage and for overtime work. Country Club answered the complaint and filed counterclaims against Mickles -- and any Plaintiff who joined the action -- for money had and received, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. Other employees then opted into the litigation by filing consents to become party Plaintiffs. On June 11, 2014, Houston filed a "Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff" with the Court, stating she consented to sue as a Plaintiff in the FLSA action. On Aug. 26, 2014, McAllister and Lemon filed their "Consents to Become Party Plaintiffs," also consenting to sue as the Plaintiffs in the FLSA action. Discovery began on Aug. 22, 2014. Mickles and Country Club agreed that, per Northern District of Georgia Local Rule 7.1(A)(2), except as specifically provided, all motions must be filed 30 days after the beginning of discovery unless the filing party has obtained prior permission of the court to file later. The district court adopted this deadline in its Scheduling Order. All motions (absent a few exceptions) were required to be filed by Sept. 22, 2014. Country Club took the depositions of Houston, McAllister, and Lemon during the discovery period. The district court twice extended the discovery period, which ultimately ended on April 6, 2015. On May 14, 2015, more than a month after the close of discovery, Mickles filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action. She moved to certify the collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), citing the procedure outlined by this Court in Hipp. 252 F.3d at 1218. On Jan. 6, 2016, the district court denied the motion for conditional certification based on untimeliness, as the motion was filed nearly eight months past the deadline set by the local rules, and Mickles did not have prior permission of the court to file the motion after the deadline. The conditional certification order made no mention of dismissing Houston, McAllister, and Lemon from the litigation. On Oct. 6, 2016, Country Club filed a motion for clarification of the district court's conditional certification order, inquiring about which individual Plaintiffs remained parties in the action. Mickles, Houston, McAllister, and Lemon each believed they were party Plaintiffs in the action because the district court never dismissed their claims. On Oct. 17, 2016, the district court granted the motion for clarification stating that Houston, McAllister, and Lemon were never adjudicated to be similarly situated to Mickles, and, therefore, were never properly added as party Plaintiffs to the collective action. On Oct. 31, 2016, Country Club notified the district court that it had reached a settlement with Mickles. Mickles and Country Club filed a motion to approve the settlement, which resolved both the substantive claims and the counterclaims. On Dec. 5, 2016, the district court approved the settlement. Houston, McAllister, and Lemon filed a notice of appeal, specifying that they were appealing the district court's (1) conditional certification order, (2) clarification order, and (3) order approving the settlement. Judge Black finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for conditional certification as untimely. The day the motion was due was Sept. 22, 2014, yet the motion was not filed until May 14, 2015. The exchange recounted during a phone conference regarding discovery does not constitute "prior permission" to file an untimely motion for conditional certification nearly eight months after the deadline provided by the local rules. While the district court stated that the Appellants could file the motion in the phone conference, its statement to file the motion does not constrain the district court from later finding that motion untimely. The district court did not abuse its discretion, and she affirms the district court's denial of conditional certification as untimely. The Judge also finds that the Appellants were parties to the litigation upon filing consents and, absent a dismissal from the case, remained parties in the litigation. Thus, the district court erred in deeming the Appellants non-parties in the clarification order, which had the effect of dismissing their claims with prejudice. For these reasons, Judge Black affirmed the district court's denial of conditional certification. She vacated the district court's clarification order, and remanded with instructions for the district court to either (1) dismiss the Appellants from the case without prejudice to refile, or (2) go forward with the Appellants' individual cases since discovery has been completed. In addition, the Judge holds that the Appellants are entitled to statutory tolling of their claims beginning on the dates they filed their written consents. Thus, Houston is entitled to statutory tolling beginning on June 11, 2014, and McAllister and Lemon are entitled to statutory tolling beginning on Aug. 26, 2014. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/uD5bhk from Leagle.com. Thomas A. Withers -- twithers@gwllawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Dean Richard Fuchs -- d.fuchs@swtwlaw.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Anthony C. Lake, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Stephen Whitfield Brown -- swbrown@littler.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Jamisen A. Etzel -- jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Edwin J. Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Benjamin J. Sweet, for Plaintiff-Appellant. William Grant Cromwell, for Plaintiff-Appellant. COZI INC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cozi Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cozi Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05630 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018). Cozi is a free mobile app and website that helps families stay organized. Its features allow multiple family members to manage appointments and schedules with one account, as well as organize and update shopping and to-do lists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Class in "Boutell" ERISA Suit Certified ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTHONY BOUTELL, BRIAN STOUT, SHANE MORN and ROGER ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CRAFTMASTER PAINTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-317-bbc (W.D. Wis.), Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted the Plaintiffs' (i) motion to allow opt-in of Jennifer Przybyla, and motion for class certification. Boutell, Stout, Morn and Anderson are former employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant failed to pay them in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and state law. The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify their FLSA claims as to hourly employees who worked for the Defendant on jobsites on or after April 28, 2014. Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for certification of a class of all hourly employees who worked on jobsites for the Defendant during the time period of April 28, 2015 to the present. The Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to accept the late opt-in form signed by Przybyla. The Defendant does not oppose the class certification or Pryzbyla's participation in the case. Judge Crabb is persuaded that a class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs meet all the requirements of Rule 23(a): the class is sufficiently numerous; the class claims share common questions; the claims of the named representatives are typical of the class; and the named Plaintiffs are adequate, as are class counsel. The Plaintiffs have also satisfied the requirements in Rule 23(b)(3) to show that common questions predominate for the purpose of determining liability and that a class action is a superior method of resolving liability. The only remaining issue is the class notice. Generally, the Plaintiffs' counsel include a proposed class notice with their motion for certification, but the Plaintiffs failed to do that in the case, the Judge finds. She will give them the opportunity to do that now. She say the Plaintiffs should take care to include all the information required under Rule 23. The Notice must clearly, concisely, and comprehensibly state: (1) the nature of the action; (2) the class definition; (3) the class claims, issues or defenses; (4) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney should he or she desire; (5) that the court will exclude any class member requesting exclusion; (6) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (7) the binding effect of a class judgment on class members, regardless of whether a member may have a stronger individual claim of liability not dependent on proof of an unofficial policy to deny overtime pay. Accordingly, Judge Crabb granted the Plaintiffs' (i) motion to allow opt-in of Przybyla, and (ii) motion for class certification. She certified the class of all hourly employees of Craftmaster Painting, LLC who worked on jobsites for Craftmaster on or after April 28, 2015. She appointed The Previant Law Firm, S.C. as the class counsel, and Boutell and Stout as the class representatives. The Plaintiffs may have until April 25, 2018, to file a proposed class notice. The Defendant may have until May 2, 2018, to file a response. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/3C3ZrE from Leagle.com. Anthony Boutell, Brian Stout, Shane Morn & Roger Anderson, Plaintiffs, represented by Yingtao Ho -- yh@previant.com -- Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, S.C. Craftmaster Painting, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas E. Witte -- dwitte@boardmanclark.com -- Boardman & Clark LLP. DISH NETWORK: Unit Appeals Ruling in "Krakauer" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Dish Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that DISH Network L.L.C. has filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the "Krakauer" suit. Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action") found that an independent third- party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400 in damages for each call made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment in favor of the class. On May 4, 2018, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. DISH Network said "During the second quarter 2017, we recorded $41 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). We recorded $20 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016. Our total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at March 31, 2018 was $61 million and is included in "Other accrued expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits." DISH Network Corporation operates satellite television programming and technology services in the United States. It offers HD/DVR technology; international channels; Internet and phone services; and DISH Anywhere, an online video site that allows users to watch TV shows, movies, and clips on computer. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado. DONISIJAX INC: Faces "Missry" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DonisiJax, Inc. The case is styled as Carol Missry and Hyman Missry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DonisiJax, Inc. d/b/a Nationwide Health Advisors, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03614 (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018). The Defendant offer companion health insurance.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. E! ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against E! Entertainment Television, LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E! Entertainment Television, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 05466 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2018). E Entertainment Television Inc was founded in 1984. The company's line of business includes the dissemination of visual and textual television programs on a subscription or fee basis.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Bid to Dismiss "Pipetone" Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Pipitone v. Electronics For Imaging, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-05992 (D.N.J., August 10, 2017) remains pending. The Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint on April 23, 2018. The Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on May 23, and the Defendants filed their reply brief on June 14. The case is assigned to Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that on August 10, 2017, a putative class action was filed against the Company and its two named executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Pipitone v. Electronics For Imaging, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-05992 (D.N.J.). A First Amended Complaint was filed on February 20, 2018. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that statements by the Company and its officers about the Company's financial reporting, revenue recognition, internal controls, and disclosure controls and procedures were false or misleading. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs, on behalf of a putative class of individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired EFI securities from February 22, 2017 through August 3, 2017. "At this time, we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss in this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected by an unfavorable resolution of this matter. Because this matter is in the preliminary stages, we are not yet in a position to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss that may be incurred," the Company said. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. a world leader in customer-centric digital printing innovation focused on the transformation of the printing, packaging, ceramic tile decoration, and textile industries from the use of traditional analog based printing to digital on-demand printing. The company is based in Fremont, California. FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Merger-Related Suits Filed --------------------------------------------- Fairmount Santrol Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 14, 2018, that the company is facing two putative class action suits related to its merger with Unimin Corporation. On May 10, 2018, an alleged stockholder of Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount Santrol") filed a putative class action against Fairmount Santrol and its directors, captioned Schneider v. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01047, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On May 11, 2018, another alleged stockholder filed a putative class action against Fairmount Santrol and its directors, captioned Fitzgibbon v. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01095, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Fairmount Santrol said in a separate Form 8-K filing that on May 4, 2018, an alleged stockholder of Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount Santrol") filed a putative class action against Fairmount Santrol and its directors, captioned Scarantino v. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01047, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuits generally allege that Fairmount Santrol and its directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the previously announced proposed transaction (the "merger") with Unimin Corporation ("Unimin"), pursuant to the terms of that Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated December 11, 2017, among Fairmount Santrol, Unimin and the other parties thereto (the "Merger Agreement"), and seeks, among other things, to enjoin the special meeting of Fairmount Santrol stockholders scheduled to be held on May 25, 2018 (the "special meeting") at which Fairmount Santrol stockholders will vote on, among other items, a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement. Fairmount Santrol and its directors believe that the allegations against them lack merit. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides sand-based proppant solutions for exploration and production companies. The company operates in two segments, Proppant Solutions and Industrial & Recreational Products. The company is based in Chesterland, Ohio. FAMOUS DAVE'S RIBS: "Broad" to Recover Illegally-Withheld Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Stephanie Broad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Famous Dave's Ribs Inc., Defendant, Case No. 508082/2018, (N.Y. Sup., April 20, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages under the under the New York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act. Broad is a "tipped employee" who works as a server at Famous Dave's restaurant located at 1060 Corporate Drive, Westbury, NY 11590. Defendant illegally applied a tip credit to her wages resulting in a rate lower that the minimum wage. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Defendant is represented by: FEATHER LAW FIRM, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Ste. 605 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516)-745-9000 FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mabel Reyes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03616-JMA- SIL (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018). Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection services to consumer creditors, finance companies, and debt buyers. It serves bank and retail credit card, installment loan and DDA, payday loans, purchased debt service contracts, and utility markets. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in Edina, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Louro, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza W 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: dlouro@cml.legal FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- First Commonwealth Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has scheduled a hearing for July 23, 2018, to consider final approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit. First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015 by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees, including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles. The plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. First Commonwealth said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs' allegations and intended to oppose class certification. The Bank has also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, set-off and recoupment against the plaintiffs, individually, and as representatives of the putative class. The Bank and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an agreement-in- principle to settle the litigation during the second quarter of 2016. First Commonwealth said the parties are negotiating the terms of a definitive settlement agreement which would be subject to court approval and other customary conditions. The estimated cost of the settlement to the Bank was recorded as a liability in the second quarter of 2016. In its recent SEC report, the Company said that First Commonwealth Financial Corporation, First Commonwealth Bank, the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' counsel and First Commonwealth's liability insurer have entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release in which, among other things, First Commonwealth and its insurer have agreed to pay certain amounts into a settlement fund to be distributed among the class members and class counsel, First Commonwealth has agreed to satisfy the remaining deficiency balances of the class members and request that credit reporting agencies delete the tradeline relating to the repossession from each class member's credit report, and the class members will release all claims against First Commonwealth and its insurer. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 29, 2018, and has scheduled a hearing on July 23, 2018 to consider final approval of the settlement. The estimated cost of the settlement to First Commonwealth was recorded as a liability in the second quarter of 2016. As set forth in the preceding paragraph, all current litigation matters, including this action, are believed to be within the range of reasonably possible losses set forth in the preceding paragraph. First Commonwealth Financial Corporation, through its subsidiary First Commonwealth Bank, provides consumer and commercial banking services to individuals, and small and mid-sized businesses in the United States. The company is based in Indiana, Pennsylvania. FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces "Wilde" Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flagstar Bank FSP. The case is styled as Robert Wilde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flagstar Bank FSP and Flagstar Bancorp Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01370-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal., June 21, 2018). Flagstar Bank offers a wide range of personal banking and business banking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen Irene Zeldes, Esq. Coast Law Group LLC 1140 South Coast Hwy 101, Suite 2050 Encinitas, CA 92024 Tel: (760) 942-8505 Email: helen@coastlaw.com FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal Order --------------------------------------------------------- Flotek Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the lead plaintiff has taken an appeal from the District Court's decision granting a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit. On March 30, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Company's motion to dismiss the four consolidated putative securities class action lawsuits that were filed in November 2015, against the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits were previously consolidated into a single case, and a consolidated amended complaint had been filed. The consolidated amended complaint asserted that the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The complaint sought an award of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October 23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive. The lead plaintiff has appealed the District Court's decision granting the motion to dismiss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Flotek is a global, diversified, technology-driven company that develops and supplies chemistries and services to the oil and gas industries, and high value compounds to companies that make food and beverages, cleaning products, cosmetics, and other products that are sold in consumer and industrial markets. The company is based in Houston, Texas. FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Page" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus, LLP. The case is styled as Kyle A Page, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, Navient Solutions, Inc., Navient Solutions, LLC, SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2012-C, Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03611 (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018). Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company specializes in collecting debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 335-1107 Email: mpash@verizon.net FRONT YARD: Discovery Underway in "Martin" Suit ----------------------------------------------- Front Yard Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that discovery is ongoing in the case captioned as Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al. On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15- cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, our former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with AAMC, Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen") and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. In May 2015, two of the company' purported shareholders filed competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff. On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20, 2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016. On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In a hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an order that the motion to dismiss had been denied. On April 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss. On April 21, 2017, the defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motion for reconsideration on May 8, 2017. On May 30, 2017, the Court issued an order that the motion for reconsideration had been denied. Discovery has commenced and is ongoing. Front Yard Residential Corporation is an industry leader in providing quality, affordable rental homes to America's families in a variety of suburban communities that have easy accessibility to metropolitan areas. GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Neuman" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit & Collection Corp. The case is styled as Sarah Neuman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 03551 (E.D. N.Y., June 18, 2018). Global Credit & Collection Inc. provides customer and account receivable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Tel: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com HENRY SCHEIN: Miami General Employees Trust Named Lead Plaintiff ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Salkowitz v. Henry Schein, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01428 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2018), Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon entered an order dated June 18, 2018, directing Movants Stuart Neiss and Joseph Salkowitz to confirm that they are withdrawing their motion to be appoint lead plaintiff or put in their opposition to the Motion to Appoint Counsel and to Appoint Lead Plaintiff filed by City of Miami General Employees & Sanitation Employees Retirement Trust. On June 22, 2018, Judge Scanlon entered an Order withdrawing Neiss and Salkowitz's Motion to Appoint Counsel and granting the Retirement Trust's bid. Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that on March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein, Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-01428. The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased publicly traded Henry Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects during the Class Period including matters relating to the issues in the antitrust class actions and the FTC action, thereby causing Plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), plaintiff's counsel published notice of the commencement of this action, and thereby provided notice of the 60-day period during which any putative class member could apply to be lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. The court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the PSLRA is pending. Henry Schein said "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this action." Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company is based in Melville, New York. HENRY SCHEIN: Amended Complaint Filed in Marion Diagnostic Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is defending against a class action suit entitled, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co. On May 3, 2018, a class action complaint, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. Dickinson, and Co., 3:18-cv-01509 (S.D. Ill), was filed in the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson, and Co. ("Becton"); Vizient, Inc. ("Vizient"); Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"); Owens & Minor Inc. ("O&M"); and Henry Schein, Inc. The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into a vertical conspiracy to force healthcare providers into long-term exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV catheters and that inflate the prices of certain Becton products to above-competitive levels. The named plaintiffs seek to represent three separate classes consisting of all healthcare providers that purchased (i) Becton"s conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or (iii) Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Cardinal, O&M, or the Company on or after May 3, 2014. The complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. On June 15, 2018, an Amended Complaint was filed against all Defendants. Henry Schein said "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action." Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company is based in Melville, New York. HRONIS INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit in California Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hronis, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Garcia, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hronis, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. BCV-18-101510 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 21, 2018). Hronis, Inc. is a fruit wholesaler in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. 411 North Central Avenue Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: 818.230.7502 Fax: 818.230.7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com I-FORTUNE COOKIE: "Chauca" Suit Seeks Retained Tips, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Marco Rigoberto Panza Chauca, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. I-Fortune Cookie Food Service Inc. and Shu Heung Lee, Defendants, Case No. 706473/2018 (N.Y. Sup., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, retained tips, spread-of-hours, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York labor law. I-Fortune Cookie is a Chinese restaurant owned by Shu Heung Lee located at 44-69 21st Street, Long Island City, New York 11101 where Panza was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker, but he was required to spend several hours each day performing non- tipped duties. Panza regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours or overtime compensation due to Defendants' failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked, says the complaint. Despite employing Panza as a delivery worker in their payroll, Panza spent a significant amount of time spent performing the non-delivery, non-tipped duties but was paid at a rate that was lower than the required tip-credit rate. Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiff's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday. Defendants managed to pay Panza at the lower tip-credited rate by designating him as a delivery worker instead of a non-tipped employee, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 3 Suits over BioCryst Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that three putative class action complaints have been filed against the company in connection with a merger deal. Three putative class action complaints have been filed in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger announced on January 22, 2018. On March 6, 2018 plaintiff Melvin Klein filed a lawsuit captioned Klein v. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv- 00358, against BioCryst, along with the BioCryst board, Idera, Holdco, Merger Sub A and Merger Sub B in United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 14, 2018, plaintiff Lisa Raatz filed a lawsuit captioned Raatz v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-10485, against Idera, along with the members of the Idera board, BioCryst, Holdco, Merger Sub A and Merger Sub B in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 22, 2018 plaintiff Ricky Cohen filed a lawsuit captioned Cohen v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00428, against Idera, along with the members of the Idera board. All three lawsuits allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9, for alleged material misstatements or omissions in connection with the Mergers. The complaints include demands for, among other things, an injunction preventing defendants from closing the proposed merger transaction absent certain disclosures of information identified in the complaints. Idera believes the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:BCRX), and Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDRA), announced in January that they have signed a definitive merger agreement to form a new enterprise focused on the development and commercialization of medicines to serve more patients suffering from rare diseases. The combined company will be renamed upon closing and will be led by Vincent Milano, CEO of Idera, who will also serve as a member of the Board. BioCryst Chairman, Robert Ingram, will be Chairman of the Board of the combined company and BioCryst CEO Jon P. Stonehouse will serve as a member of the Board of Directors. Under the terms of the merger agreement, each share of BioCryst common stock will be exchanged for 0.50 shares of the new company stock and each share of Idera common stock will be exchanged for 0.20 shares of the new company stock. The exchange ratio reflects an "at market" combination based upon the approximate 30-day average volume weighted trading prices for each company. On a proforma, fully diluted basis, giving effect to all dilutive stock options, units and warrants, BioCryst stockholders will own 51.6% of the stock of the combined company and Idera stockholders will own 48.4%. The stock issuance in the merger is expected to be tax-free to stockholders. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of novel oligonucleotide therapeutics for oncology and rare diseases. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Negotiations on Legal Fees Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Kindered Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that negotiations concerning legal fees in a class action lawsuit are ongoing. Six purported class action complaints related to a merger transaction were filed on behalf of putative classes of the Company's public stockholders (the "Merger Complaints"). Four of these complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware: Sehrgosha v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February 8, 2018; Carter v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February 14, 2018; Rosenfeld v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February 15, 2018; and Einhorn v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February 21, 2018. The remaining two complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky: Tompkins v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February 9, 2018; and Buskirk v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February 13, 2018. The Company and individual members of the Board are named as defendants in each of the actions. The Tompkins action also names as defendants TPG, WCAS, Humana, Parent, HospitalCo Parent and Merger Sub. The Merger Complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by failing to disclose material information in the Company's preliminary proxy statement filed on February 5, 2018. The Merger Complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting the stockholder vote to approve the Merger and unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. On March 5, 2018, the plaintiffs jointly agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Merger Complaints in exchange for the Company's agreement to file supplemental disclosures with the SEC. The supplemental disclosures were filed on March 6, 2018. Negotiations concerning legal fees are ongoing. Kindred Healthcare, Inc.is a healthcare services company that through its subsidiaries operates a home health, hospice and community care business, TC hospitals, IRFs, and a contract rehabilitation services business across the United States. The company is based in Louisville, Kentucky. LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Smith" Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Lifevantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss the case entitled, Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., is due on June 4, 2018, remains pending. On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D. Connecticut filed Jan. 24, 2018). In this action, plaintiff alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Sales Officer and its Chief Marketing Officer operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and state statutes, including RICO and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"). On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the Court to dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest class certification. Plaintiff's response was due on June 4, 2018. The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition. Lifevantage Corporation is a company focused on biohacking the aging code through nutrigenomics, the study of how nutrition and naturally occurring compounds affect our genes. The company is based in Sandy, Utah. LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Securities Suit in Utah Now Concluded ------------------------------------------------------- Lifevantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the case entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage Corp. and later recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation has been concluded. On September 15, 2016, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv- 00965-BCW (D. Utah filed Sept. 15, 2016). In this action (later recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. On June 15, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, without prejudice, and permitted lead plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 18, 2017, the Court denied lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and entered final judgment in favor of LifeVantage and the other defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice. On October 17, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation whereby lead plaintiffs agreed not to take an appeal from the final judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants in exchange for mutual releases, without payment of any consideration by or on behalf of defendants. This case is now concluded. LifeVantage Corporation is a company focused on biohacking the aging code through nutrigenomics, the study of how nutrition and naturally occurring compounds affect our genes. The company is based in Sandy, Utah. LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Tutor" and "Trinchero" Suits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the case Tutor v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company was consolidated with the case captioned Trinchero, et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. Tutor v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 2:17-cv-04150, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is a putative class action filed on September 18, 2017. In March 2018, the Tutor case was consolidated with a newly-filed matter captioned Trinchero, et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the same court, No. 18-cv-00765. The consolidated case is captioned In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 17-cv-04150. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek damages on their behalf. The Lincoln National Life Insurance said "We are vigorously defending this matter." The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. M & T BANK: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M & T Bank Corporation. The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M & T Bank Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05656 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018). M&T Bank Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York. It operates 780 branches in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal MALLINCKRODT PLC: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that the case captioned as, MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al., has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Company said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on October 30, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is captioned MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of two classes: all Medicare Advantage Organizations and related entities in the U.S. who purchased or provided reimbursement for H.P. Acthar Gel pursuant to (i) Medicare Part C contracts (Class 1) and (ii) Medicare Part D contracts (Class 2) since January 1, 2011, with certain exclusions. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of H.P. Acthar Gel. To this end, the complaint alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot and reaching anti- competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling H.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network. The complaint purports to allege claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition and unfair trade practice laws. In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that pursuant to a motion filed by defendants, this case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Amended City of Rockford Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and UBC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. Mallinckrodt said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that an amended complaint was filed on October 9, 2017, adding defendants and alleging that the Company engaged in anticompetitive, fraudulent, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of Acthar. In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that the complaint was subsequently amended, most recently on December 8, 2017, to include an additional named plaintiff and additional defendants. As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain others, that paid for H.P. Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of H.P. Acthar Gel. To this end, the suit alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot; conspired with UBC and violated anti-racketeering laws by selling H.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distributor; and committed a fraud on consumers by failing to correctly identify H.P. Acthar Gel's active ingredient on package inserts. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in the Employee Stock Purchase Plan Securities Litigation. Mallinckrodt said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock through Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plans ("ESPPs"), filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Mark C. Trudeau ("CEO") , its Chief Financial Officer Matthew K. Harbaugh ("CFO"), its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and former directors of the Company. On September 6, 2017, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Missouri complaint and refiled it in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November 25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, in the ESPPs. In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same period. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, non- disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the putative class action securities litigation filed on January 23, 2017. There were two competing movants to serve as lead plaintiff/lead counsel, and those motions were pending. In its recent quarterly report, the Company said that stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved by the court on March 1, 2018. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Conduct Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that a lead plaintiff was designated by the court in the class action suit related to H.P. Acthar Gel and Synacthen to artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock. On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on a domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017. The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements related to H.P. Acthar Gel and Synacthen to artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock. In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term sustainability of H.P. Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of H.P. Acthar Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14, 2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit, captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company and its CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. Mallinckrodt said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Since that time, two of the plaintiff groups have withdrawn their motions. There were two competing movants to serve as lead plaintiff/lead counsel. In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that Lead plaintiff was designated by the court on March 9, 2018. On June 22, 2018, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, as lead plaintiff, filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to Issue Document Preservation Subpoenas. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies. MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Appeals Tel Aviv District Court's Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiff has taken an appeal from a district court ruling in pronouncing that U.S. law will apply in the case. Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline in the Company's stock price, two motions were submitted to the district court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the certification of a class action against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. In general, the complaints alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. MannKind said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that in November 2016, the district court dismissed one of the actions without prejudice. In the remaining action, the district court recently ruled that U.S. law will apply to this case. MannKind said "We are in the process of preparing a response to the plaintiff's motion to certify the case as a class action. We will vigorously defend against the claims advanced." In its recent SEC report, MannKind said the plaintiff has appealed this ruling. MannKind added, "The Company will vigorously defend against the claims advanced." MannKind Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of inhaled therapeutic products for patients with diseases such as diabetes and pulmonary arterial hypertension. The company is based in Westlake Village, California. MDL 2406: Settlement Negotiations Suspended, Triple-S Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the settlement negotiations between the parties in the case entitled, In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, through mediation have been suspended for the time being. Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012, respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Antitrust Litigation. Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation under federal antitrust laws. As per provider plaintiffs, the quid pro quo for said "market allocation" is a horizontal price fixing and boycott conspiracy" implemented through the Inter- Plans Program Committee ("IPPC") and whose benefits are allegedly derived through the BCBSA's Blue Card/National Accounts Program. Among the remedies sought, provider plaintiffs seek increased compensation rates and operational changes. In turn, subscriber plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy to allocate markets have prevented subscribers from being offered competitive prices and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan subscribers. Subscribers seek damages in the form of supra-competitive premiums allegedly charged by the Blue Plans and/or the difference between what subscribers have paid the Blues and the lower competitive premiums that non-competing Blues would have charged. Both actions seek injunctive relief. Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several plans, including TSS, whose request was ultimately denied by the court without prejudice. On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS. Said complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS' jurisdictional arguments. Since inception, the Company has joined BCBSA and other Blue Plans in vigorously contesting these claims. On April 5, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, issued it's ruling on the parties' respective motions for partial summary judgment on the standard of review applicable to plaintiffs' claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and subscriber plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Blue Plan's single entity defense. After considering the "undisputed" facts (for summary judgment purposes only) and evidence currently on record in the light most favorable to defendants, the court essentially found that: (a) the Exclusive Service Areas constitute horizontal market allocations that are subject to the Per Se standard of review; (b) the National Best Efforts Rule constitutes an "output restriction" subject to the Per Se standard of review; (c) there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants' conduct can be shielded by the "single entity" defense; and (d) claims concerning the BlueCard Program and uncoupling rules are due to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason standard. Presently, the court's ruling is being reviewed and evaluated for purposes of determining the course to follow. Meanwhile, the settlement negotiations between the parties through mediation have been suspended for the time being. Triple-S Management Corporation is one of the most significant players in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico and have over 55 years of experience in this industry. The company is based in San Juan, Puerto Rico. METLIFE INC: "Owens" Suit Gets Nationwide Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- Metlife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has certified a nationwide class and also certified a Georgia subclass in the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom MLIC established a Total Control Accounts to pay death benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan. The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC 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 MLIC'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. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Metlife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada continues to defend itself against sales practices lawsuits. In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC 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 MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties agreed to consider the indemnity claim through arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging sales practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC 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 MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC 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. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Suit Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------- Metlife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the case Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), is still ongoing. 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 MLIC to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that MLIC 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. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Suit Underway --------------------------------------------- Metlife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the appeal in the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), is still pending. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all California persons who have been charged compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that MLIC 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 MLIC'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. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: "Lau "Class Action Concluded ----------------------------------------- Metlife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the case captioned as, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015) has been concluded. This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable value option to another investment option, the procedures followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The parties settled on January 2, 2018 and the court has dismissed the action. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: 7th Circuit Revives "Newman" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Metlife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the case, Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016) has been remanded by the Seventh Circuit to the district court 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 MLIC'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 MLIC'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 MLIC's motion, dismissing the action with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (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 MLIC's petition for rehearing, the Seventh Circuit issued an amended opinion on March 22, 2018, holding that plaintiff's claim survived MLIC's motion to dismiss but finding that the policy is ambiguous as to MLIC'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. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: Dismissed from "Miller" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- Metlife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the case, Miller, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal., filed April 7, 2017), have dismissed the company, without prejudice, from the action. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc. and MLIC 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. MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Suit Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------- Metlife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court in the case, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9, 2017), has conditionally certified the case as a collective action. 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 MetLife 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. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. MICHAEL C KOEHN: Faces "Long" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael C Koehn. The case is styled as Bruce Long, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael C Koehn, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00943 (E.D. Wis., June 21, 2018). The Defendant is a lawyer in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T Thomasson, Esq. Stern Thomasson LLP 150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl Springfield, NJ 07081 Tel: (973) 379-7500 Fax: (973) 532-5868 Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com MY BELLY'S: Court Approves Settlement in "Ortiz" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement in the case, TRANQUILLINO ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MY BELLY'S PLAYLIST LLC, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 2924 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.). The Plaintiffs commenced the action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime premium pay and spread-of- hours pay. They also asserted claims that the Defendants failed to keep certain records, provide certain notices and reimburse them for equipment that they purchased in connection with their employment. The Plaintiffs brought the action as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to the FLSA claims, but the parties reached a settlement prior to the matter being conditionally certified. The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' joint application to approve a proposed settlement agreement that they have reached. The Plaintiffs are three individuals who were employees at the Defendants' sandwich shop and catering service; they were listed on the Defendants' payrolls as deliverymen, but they contend that this job title does not accurately describe their actual duties. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants for varying lengths of time between approximately February 2015 and February 2016. They claim that the Defendants paid them below minimum wage, and that the Defendants deducted tips from their wages despite the fact that they were not entitled to do so. Then Plaintiffs further argue that even if the Defendants were entitled to pay them at the tip credit rate, the latter still violated the FLSA because their hourly wages were less than the proper tip credit rate. The Plaintiffs also claim that they consistently worked over 40 hours per week, but did not receive any overtime premium pay. The Plaintiffs' total alleged damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs, are $55,218.92. In particular, Ortiz claims that he is owed a total of $24,627.64, Flores claims a total of $13,749.51 and Velasquez claims a total of $16,841.77. Using these damages figures, Ortiz's pro rata share of the total damages claimed is 44.6%, Flores's pro rata share is 24.9% and Velasquez's pro rata share is 30.5%. The Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' claims, asserting that the Plaintiffs were deliverymen who did not perform substantial non- tipped duties. In addition, they argue that they paid the Plaintiffs correct and full wages under the FLSA and NYLL. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendants agree to pay the Plaintiffs $20,000 in full and final satisfaction of the Plaintiffs' claims. The parties also agree that the Plaintiffs' counsel will receive $6,600 of the settlement fund for attorney's fees and costs. The amount claimed by each Plaintiff, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, and the net amount that will be received by each after deduction of legal fees and costs are as follows: Amount Net Settlement Plaintiff Claimed Amount ---------------------- --------- ----------- $24,627.64 Tranquillino Ortiz $5,976.40 $13,749.51 Fernando Flores $3,336.60 $16,841.77 Roberto Velasquez $4,087.00 Total $55,218.92 $13,400 In determining whether a proposed FLSA settlement is fair and reasonable, a court should consider the totality of circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors: (1) the plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which the settlement will enable the parties to avoid anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) whether the settlement agreement is the product of arm's length bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion. Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that the settlement here satisfies these criteria. First, the Plaintiffs' total settlement, after deduction of fees, represents approximately 24.3% of their total alleged damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest. Second, the settlement will entirely avoid the expense and aggravation of litigation. Third, the settlement will enable the Plaintiffs to avoid the risk of litigation. Fourth, the counsel represents that the settlement is the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel and that counsel advocated zealously on behalf of their respective clients during negotiations. Fifth there are no factors here that suggest the existence of fraud. The settlement fund will be distributed to the Plaintiffs on a pro rata basis based on the proportion of each the Plaintiff's individual claim to the total of all four Plaintiff's claims. In light of number of hours worked by and the hourly rates paid to each plaintiff, the allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable. The parties have also agreed to a mutual general release. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge finds the release agreed to by the parties permissible. Finally, the settlement provides that the Plaintiffs' counsel will be awarded $6,600 as attorney's fees, which constitutes less than one-third of the total settlement fund. Accordingly, for all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pitman approves the settlement in the matter. In light of the settlement, the action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk is respectfully requested to mark the matter closed. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/4J3wmn from Leagle.com. Tranquilino Castillo Ortiz, individually, Tranquilino Castillo Ortiz, on behalf of others similarly situated, Fernando Sanchez Flores, individually, Roberto Velasquez, individually, Roberto Velasquez, on behalf of others similarly situated & Fernando Sanchez Flores, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Antonio Faillace, Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. My Bellys Playlist LLC, doing business as My Belly's Playlist, Tipp One LLC, doing business as Lili O'Brien's, Shawn Reilly, Ian Behar, Ryan Sasson & John Carey, Defendants, represented by Kathy Sue Marks, Yankwitt LLP & Russell Marc Yankwitt, Yankwitt LLP. MYRIAD GENETICS: Faces "Kessman" Suit in Utah --------------------------------------------- Myriad Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is defending against a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah, filed by Matthew Kessman. On April 20, 2018, Matthew Kessman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah, against the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Peter D. Meldrum, its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee, and its former Chief Financial Officer, James S. Evans. This action is premised upon allegations that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, operational and compliance policies, specifically by allegedly failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly submitting false or otherwise improper claims for payment under Medicare and Medicare for the Company's hereditary cancer testing. The plaintiff seeks certification as the purported class representative and the payment of damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff and the purported class by reason of the allegations set forth in the complaint, plus interest, and legal and other costs and fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. Myriad Genetics, Inc. is a leading personalized medicine company dedicated to being a trusted advisor transforming patient lives through pioneering molecular diagnostics. The company is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. NATUS MEDICAL: Still Defends Against "Costabile" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Natus Medical Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the case entitled, Costabile v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al. is still ongoing. In January 2017, a putative class action lawsuit (Badger v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al., No. 17-cv-00458-JSW) alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain officers and a director. In July 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with a new lead plaintiff (Costabile v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al., No. 17-cv-00458-JSW) alleging violations of federal securities laws based on allegedly false and misleading statements. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and in February 2018 the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs re-filed an amended complaint in April 2018, and Natus' response is due in May 2018. The Company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Natus is a provider of newborn care, neurology, and hearing and balance assessment healthcare products and services used for the screening, diagnosis, detection, treatment, monitoring and tracking of common medical ailments in newborn care, hearing impairment, neurological dysfunction, epilepsy, sleep disorders, neuromuscular diseases and balance and mobility disorders. The company is based in Pleasanton, California. NEW CITY LAWN: Faces "Flores" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New City Lawn & Landscape, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Flores, on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. New City Lawn & Landscape, Inc. and Joseph Monteferrante, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-05456 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2018). New City Lawn & Landscape Inc is a privately held company in New City, NY and is a Single Location business. Categorized under Landscape Contractors. Our records show it was established in 1999 and incorporated in NY. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of 150000 and employs a staff of approximately 2.[BN] NEWPORT CORP: MKS Objects to Subpoena Duces Tecum ------------------------------------------------- MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company has objected to a third-party subpoena duces tecum it received in connection to the case entitled, In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to the Merger Agreement between the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub. The complaint, filed on March 9, 2016, named as defendants the Company, Newport and Merger Sub, and certain then-current and former members of Newport's former board of directors. The complaint alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an amended complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Newport on March 15, 2016 (the "Proxy") omitted material information. The amended complaint also names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and then-current members of Newport's board of directors. Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A- 16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of Newport's stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub and the then- current members of Newport's former board of directors. It alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief. On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016. On April 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing on their anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and notified the Court that they did not presently intend to file a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the Merger Agreement. On April 22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. In August 2016, plaintiffs completed the expedited discovery that the Court ordered. On October 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a class of Newport's stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint named as defendants the Company, Newport, and the then-current members of Newport's former board of directors. It alleged that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleged that the Company and Newport aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint sought monetary damages, including pre- and post- judgment interest. On December 9, 2016, both the Company and the Newport defendants filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss on January 13, 2017. On February 3, 2017, the Company and the Newport defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was held on February 15, 2017. MKS Instruments said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on June 22, 2017, the court dismissed the amended complaint against all defendants but granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On July 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which names as defendants certain former directors of Newport. On August 8, 2017, the Court dismissed the Company and Newport from the action pursuant to stipulations among the parties. The second amended complaint alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by omitting material information from the proxy statement. The second amended complaint seeks monetary damages, including pre- and post- judgment interest. On July 28, 2017, the Company and Newport each entered into a stipulation and proposed order with plaintiffs whereby plaintiffs agreed not to assert any claims against the Company or Newport in an amended complaint and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Company and Newport from the action. The Newport directors filed a motion to dismiss on September 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed an opposition to this motion to dismiss on October 6, 2017, and the Newport directors filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss on October 27, 2017. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for December 7, 2017. In its recent SEC report, the Company disclosed that the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on December 7, 2017. On January 5, 2018, the Court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss. The Newport directors answered the second amended complaint, denying the material allegations of the complaint and asserting defenses, on February 20, 2018. On April 13, 2018, the Company received a third-party subpoena duces tecum requesting documents and a deposition on various topics in the state of Nevada. The Company served plaintiffs with objections and responses to the subpoena on April 27, 2018. MKS Instruments, Inc. is a global provider of instruments, subsystems and process control solutions that measure, control, power, monitor and analyze critical parameters of advanced manufacturing processes to improve process performance and productivity. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts. NICARAGUA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Robertson" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the case, JOSEPHENIE ROBERTSON, M.T.T., individually and as the Representative, Officer and Matriarch of the Traditional Authority and Miskitu Government-In-Exile, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-17156 (9th Cir.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Robertson appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of her action. Having reviewed de novo the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed Robertson's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Robertson alleged claims that presented a political question. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robertson's motion for appointment of counsel because Robertson did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. To the extent that Robertson sought to maintain the action as a class action lawsuit, it held that Robertson cannot do so because she is not an attorney. It rejected as unsupported by the record Robertson's contentions regarding the district court's denial of her motion for sanctions and treatment of Robertson's requests to amend her complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/G6TtQj from Leagle.com. NISSAN NORTH: Court Adds Leyva as Named Plaintiff in "Falk" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHELLE FALK, INDHU JAYAVELU, PATRICIA L. CRUZ, DANIELLE TROTTER, CYNTHIA GARRISON, AND AMANDA MACRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-04871-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, approved the joint stipulation permitting amendment of complaint to add a Plaintiff. After filing the action on Aug. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Sept. 27, 2017. They seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased and/or leased in the United States a model year 2013-2017 Nissan Sentra equipped with a continuously variable transmission, and subclasses of persons who purchased and/or leased such vehicles in California, Ohio, New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Illinois. NNA moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC on Oct. 26, 2017. Following hearing on Jan. 11, 2018, the Court has taken NNA's motion under submission. It issued a Scheduling Order on Jan. 12, 2018, which set a deadline of March 16, 2018 for further amendment of the Complaint in the action. Leyva filed on Sept. 11, 2017 a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, under caption Leyva v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-01870 FMO ("Leyva Action"). In his First Amended Class Action Complaint filed on Dec. 18, 2017, Leyva seeks to represent a proposed class of all individuals in the United States who purchased or leased any 2012-2017 Nissan Sentra equipped with an Xtronic CVT" and one or more subclasses. NNA moved to dismiss Leyva's First Amended Class Action Complaint on Jan. 12, 2018, and the motion remains pending. The putative class and one or more subclasses alleged in the Leyva Action overlap with the alleged class and/or subclasses alleged in Falk's action. The Falk Plaintiffs, Leyva, and NNA desire to avoid the expense of duplicative discovery, and the potential waste of judicial resources. Therefore, the stipulated to and agreed, and Judge Gilliam approved, that on Aril 19, 2018, Leyva will dismiss the Leyva Action without prejudice. Upon dismissal of the Leyva Action, the counsel for Leyva may file a notice of appearance in the Falk action. Leyva will be permitted to join the action as an additional named Plaintiff via amended complaint after the Court has ruled on the pending motion to dismiss. If the Plaintiffs determine to file an amended Complaint that is limited solely to adding Leyva as an additional named Plaintiff, then the Defendant will not oppose such amendment. Leyva may not assert any claim for relief or cause of action not asserted by the Plaintiffs in their FAC in the action. Leyva will be bound by the Court's ruling on NNA's pending motion to dismiss in the action and may not assert any claim for relief or cause of action dismissed without leave to amend. The applicable limitations period for Leyva's claims will be tolled for the period from the date of the filing of the dismissal of the Leyva Action until the date that Leyva is added to the action. The deadline to amend the Complaint in the action will be continued to and including 14 days following the Court's ruling on NNA's pending motion to dismiss, or any other date that the Court may set in its ruling. A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/yfHyUg from Leagle.com. Michelle Falk, Plaintiff, represented by Shimon Yiftach -- shimony@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, Gary S. Graifman -- ggraifman@kgglaw.com -- Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Jason Samual Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, Jay I. Brody -- jbrody@kgglaw.com - - Kantrowitz, Goldhamer and Graifman, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise -- josterwise@bm.net -- Berger and Montague P.C., Jennifer Shari Goldstein -- jgoldstein@wbmllp.com -- Whifield Bryson and Mason, LLP, Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- Berger and Montague P.C. & Nicholas A. Migliaccio , Migliaccio & Rathod. Indhu Jayavelu, Patricia L. Cruz, Danielle Trotter, Amanda Macri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Cynthia Garrison, Plaintiffs, represented by Shimon Yiftach , Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, Gary S. Graifman , Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Gary E. Mason , Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Jason Samual Rathod , Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, Jay I. Brody , Kantrowitz, Goldhamer and Graifman, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise , Berger and Montague P.C., Lawrence Deutsch , Berger and Montague P.C. & Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod. Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by E. Paul Cauley, Jr. -- paul.cauley@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Marshall Lee Benjamin Baker -- marshall.baker@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Michael James Stortz -- michael.stortz@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Reply in Dextenza Suit Due July 6 ----------------------------------------------------- Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that defendants' response to the consolidated amended class action complaint is due July 6, 2018. The Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 7, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Thomas Gallagher v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv- 05011. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017. The complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the Form 483 issued by the FDA related to DEXTENZA and the Company's manufacturing operations for DEXTENZA. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On July 14, 2017, an amended complaint was filed; the amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 11, 2017, and otherwise includes allegations similar to those made in the original complaint. On July 12, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Dylan Caraker v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05095. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017. The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief. On August 3, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Shawna Kim v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05704. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11, 2017. The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief. On October 27, 2017, a magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendants' motion to transfer the above-referenced Gallagher, Caraker, and Kim litigations to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On November 2, 2017, the Caraker lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court of Massachusetts. The other cases were transferred at a later date. These matters were assigned the following docket numbers in the District of Massachusetts: 1:17-cv-12288 (Gallagher), 1:17-cv-12146 (Caraker), and 1:17-cv-12286 (Kim). In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that on March 9, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the three actions and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel for the consolidated action. On May 7, 2018, co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended complaint makes allegations similar to those in the original complaints, against the same defendants, and seeks similar relief on behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11, 2017. The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Defendants' response to the consolidated amended complaint is due on July 6, 2018. Ocular Therapeutix said "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits." Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the formulation, development and commercialization of innovative therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye using our proprietary, bioresorbable hydrogel platform technology. The company is based in Bedford, Massachusetts. OMNI HOTELS: Faces "Samaniego" Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omni Hotels Management Corporation. The case is styled as Armando Samaniego, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Omni Hotels Corporation and TRT Development Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01372- L-BGS (S.D. Cal., June 21, 2018). Omni Hotels & Resorts is an American privately held, international luxury hotel company based in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 762-1910 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Suit over tZERO Initial Coin Offering -------------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is defending against purported class action suits in Utah in connection to its disclosures made in its tZERO's Initial Coin Offering. A purported class action complaint was filed against the company, Patrick Byrne and Jonathan E. Johnson III, in the United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company relating to tZERO's Initial Coin Offering and the announcement of an SEC investigation. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Another substantially similar complaint was filed shortly thereafter, also naming the company, Dr. Byrne and Mr. Johnson as defendants, bringing the same claims under the Exchange Act, and seeking substantially similar relief. Dr. Byrne and Mr. Johnson are each executive officers of the Company and members of our board of directors, and the company has indemnification agreements and obligations with each of them. Overstock.com said "Regardless of the outcome of this matter, we expect to incur costs, and the costs may be material. An unfavorable resolution of any substantial litigation matter, including these lawsuits, could have a material adverse effect on our financial results and business." Overstock.com, Inc. is an online retailer and advancer of blockchain technology. Through its online retail business, the company offers a broad range of price-competitive products, including furniture, home decor, bedding and bath, housewares, jewelry and watches, among other products. The company is based in Midvale, Utah. PBF HOLDING: "Goldstein" Class Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Co LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance Refinery which was then owned and operated by Exxon. The operation of the Torrance Refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance Refinery. PBF Holding said "This matter is in the initial stages of discovery and we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." PBF Holding Co LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum products in the United States. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PERRIGO COMPANY: "Schweiger" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court in Schweiger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., has approved plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal. On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action against the company and five individual defendants: The company's former CEO Mr. Papa, its former Executive Vice President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, its then Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, the Company's former Board member Gary Kunkle, Jr., and its Board member Laurie Brlas alleging violations of Israeli law in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Schweiger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.). On June 15, 2016, the company filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the securities class action pending in the New Jersey Federal Court. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and the Schweiger action was stayed. In October 2017, the Schweiger plaintiffs dismissed their claims without prejudice because of the pendency of another class action case filed in Israel. The court approved the voluntary dismissal. Perrigo Company plc is a leading global healthcare company, delivering value to its customers and consumers by providing Quality Affordable Healthcare Products(R). PERRIGO COMPANY: "Keinan" Suit Concluded ---------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has dismissed the case entitled Keinan v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. On March 29, 2017, plaintiff Eyal Keinan commenced an action in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa asserting securities claims against two defendants: Perrigo and its auditor Ernst & Young LLP ("EY"). The case is styled Keinan v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. The action sought certification of a class of purchasers of Perrigo shares on the Israeli exchange beginning February 6, 2014. The proposed closing date for the class was not clear from the complaint though it appeared to extend into 2017. In general, the plaintiff asserted that the company improperly accounted for its stream of royalty income from two drugs: Tysabri(R) and Prialt. The court filings contended that the alleged improper accounting caused the audited financial results for Perrigo to be incorrect for the six month period ended December 31, 2015, and the years ended June 27, 2015 and June 28, 2014 and the other financial data released by the company over those years and 2016 to also be inaccurate. The plaintiff maintained that the defendants are liable under Israeli securities law or, in the alternative, under U.S. securities law. The plaintiff indicated an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 686.0 million NIS (approximately $192.0 million at 1 NIS = $0.28 cent). In January 2018, the Keinan plaintiff announced its intention to dismiss his claims because of the pendency of another class action case filed in Israel. The court granted the dismissal on February 11, 2018. Perrigo Company plc is a global healthcare company, delivering value to its customers and consumers by providing Quality Affordable Healthcare Products(R). PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Employees' Education Fund Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has approved the stay in the case entitled Israel Elec. Corp. Employees' Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. On June 28, 2017, a plaintiff filed a complaint in Tel Aviv District Court styled Israel Elec. Corp. Employees' Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased Perrigo stock on the Tel Aviv exchange during the period April 24, 2015 through May 3, 2017 and also a claim for those that owned shares on the final day of the Mylan tender offer (November 13, 2015). The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, EY (the Company's auditor), and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O'Connor). The complaint alleges violations under U.S. securities laws of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals or, in the alternative, under Israeli securities laws. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by us and our former executives to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure concerning purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri(R) royalty stream. The plaintiff indicates an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 2.7 billion NIS (approximately $760.0 million at 1 NIS = $0.28 cent). Perrigo Company said "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Perrigo said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 12, 2017, the plaintiff in the Israel Elec. Corp. Employees' Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. case filed a motion to have all three cases pending in Israel either consolidated or the other two cases dismissed so that the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff can proceed as the sole plaintiff. In October 2017, the Schweiger plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their securities class action without prejudice as part of their response to the motion filed by the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff. A variety of other procedural motions were also pending at this time having to do with the timing of any response by defendants. The court scheduled an initial conference on November 9, 2017 to address the motion filed by the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff. The court indicated that other procedural motions will be addressed after it has decided the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff's motion. In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that the competing class plaintiffs subsequently held discussions and informed the court in January 2018 that they had reached an agreement among themselves such that the Education Fund case will continue and the Keinan plaintiff dismissed its case. The court approved this outcome. At the request of the parties, the court has stayed the Education Fund case pending the final adjudication of the class action case in D.N.J. (the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above under Securities Litigation In the United States). The court approved the stay. Perrigo Company plc is a global healthcare company, delivering value to its customers and consumers by providing Quality Affordable Healthcare Products(R). PERRIGO COMPANY: Attorney General's Opinion Due on May 30 --------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has ordered the Attorney General to submit its opinion to the settlement in the Eltroxin settlement agreement by May 30, 2018. During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by our subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included the company's subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel. One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight applications were consolidated into one application. The applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation. Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May 17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Perrigo said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on June 16, 2015, the company submitted a motion for permission to appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. The company has filed its statement of defense to the underlying proceedings. The parties engaged in mediation in an attempt to settle the matter. The underlying proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the mediation process and, if necessary, a decision on the motion to appeal. In its recent quarterly report, Perrigo said that on November 14, 2017 the parties submitted the agreed settlement agreement to the approval of the Supreme Court, which referred the approval back to the District Court. During three hearings that took place on November 29, 2017, December 13, 2017 and January 11, 2018 the District Court opined that it would approve the settlement agreement subject to certain amendments to be proposed by the Court (which would not impact the monetary settlement reached) and set a hearing for January 30, 2018 to discuss and finalize the proposed changes. Meanwhile, the Court ordered the settlement to be (1) provided to the Attorney General for review (standard procedure); and (2) published in the written media (newspapers), to enable the class members to submit any objections or "opt-out" to the proposed settlement by February 15, 2018. On February 21, 2018, the District Court held a hearing to, among others, review objections received from class members who had notified the District Court of their desire to opt out of the settlement. In addition, a representative of the Israeli Attorney General's office notified the District Court that, based upon their preliminary examination of the settlement, they intend to object to the settlement in its current form. The District Court recommended that the parties continue to discuss and minimize objections to the settlement and scheduled another hearing for May 13, 2018. The District Court Justice was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice and ordered to move the case to a different panel. In an effort to reach a decision before the appointment, an additional hearing was held on March 12, 2018 in which the court urged the parties to try and exhaust their negotiations to the fullest and provide an update by May 13, 2018. In addition, the Court ordered the Attorney General to submit its opinion to the settlement agreement by May 30, 2018. Perrigo Company plc is a global healthcare company, delivering value to its customers and consumers by providing Quality Affordable Healthcare Products(R). PHH CORP: 3 Merger-Related Suits Filed in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------- PHH Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing three class action lawsuits following its announcement of a proposed merger with Ocwen Financial Corporation. Following the announcement of the proposed Merger with Ocwen on February 27, 2018, three class actions were filed against the company and each member of its Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of a class consisting of all of our common stockholders except for the defendants and their affiliates. In support of their request for injunctive and other relief, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, because the public disclosures the Company has made concerning the proposed Merger with Ocwen allegedly are false and misleading. Additionally, one of the plaintiffs allege that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the sale of the Company to Ocwen at an inadequate price after an inadequate process. PHH said Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because these actions are at a preliminary stage, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of these matters at this time. PHH Corporation is an American financial services corporation headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey which provides mortgage services to some of the world's largest financial services firms. PURDUE PHARMA: Faces National Roofers Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma LP. The case is styled as National Roofers Union & Employers Joint Health & Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue Pharma LP, Cephalon Incorporated, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Endo International PLC, Endo Health Solutions Incorporated, Endo Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Insys Therapeutics Incorporated, Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt LLC, Amerisource Bergen Corporation, Cardinal Health Incorporated and McKesson Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01949-BSB (D. Ariz., June 21, 2018). Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carissa J Dolan, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W Broadway, Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 - and - Carmen A Medici, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W Broadway, Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: cmedici@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas E Egler, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W Broadway, Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 QUANTUM CORP: Court Extends CMC, Related Deadlines in "Lazan" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVEN LAZAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. QUANTUM CORPORATION, FUAD AHMAD, JON W. GACEK, and ADALIO T. SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00923-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richaed Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted the parties' stipulated order extending the time to respond to the complaint and postponing case management conference and related deadlines. On Feb. 13, 2018, Lazan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws against Quantum and certain of its current and former officers and directors, Gacek, Ahmad, and Sanchez. The Defendants waived service of the Complaint, and their responses to the Complaint are currently due June 11, 2018. On Feb. 13, 2018, the Court entered an Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, which, among other things, set an Initial Case Management Conference for May 17, 2018. The CMC Order further set May 10, 2018 as the last day for the parties to file a Rule 26(f) Report, complete initial disclosures or state objection in Rule 26(f) Report, and file a Case Management Statement per Standing Order re Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, and set April 26, 2018 as the last day for the parties to meet and confer regarding initial disclosures, early settlement, Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") process selection, and a discovery plan, and file an ADR Certification with either a Stipulation to ADR Process or a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference. The action is governed by the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and the parties anticipate that the Court will appoint a lead plaintiff and that the court-appointed lead plaintiff will file a consolidated complaint superseding previously filed complaints, including the Complaint. The parties agree that efficiency for the Court and the parties in proceeding under the PSLRA dictates that responding to the current Complaint should be deferred. Therefore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Seeborg granted, that after the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), the lead plaintiff and the Defendants will promptly meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for the Defendants' anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. The parties will submit a joint stipulation with a proposed schedule no later than 10 business days following the appointment of the lead plaintiff. The Defendants will not be required to move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to, the Complaint in the action, and will not be deemed to have waived any rights, arguments, or defenses by waiting to respond, until such time as the Defendants are required to respond pursuant to the Court-approved schedule. The Initial CMC currently set in the matter for May 17, 2018 is vacated and will be rescheduled at a later date consistent with the foregoing stipulation. All related deadlines set forth in the Court's Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines will be continued accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/s63vm1 from Leagle.com. Steven Lazan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Allen Walker -- Jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, Joel Anderson Fleming - - Joel@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Whitney E. Street -- whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP. Quantum Corporation, Fuad Ahmad & Adalio T. Sanchez, Defendants, represented by Boris Feldman -- Boris.Feldman@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Caz Hashemi -- chashemi@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Normane Gillmann, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Globis Capital Advisors L.L.C., Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. David Andrews, Movant, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West-Hopson Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------ SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action suit by Lisa West and Stormy Hopson. On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, among other defendants. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted various tort claims seeking relief for damages, including the reimbursement of past and future earthquake insurance premiums, resulting from seismic activity allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of wastewater disposal wells. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint on May 12, 2017, but permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. Sandridge Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint making allegations substantially similar to those contained in the amended complaint that was previously dismissed. An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sandridge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a principal focus on exploration and production activities in the U.S. Mid-Continent and North Park Basin of Colorado. SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Continues to Defend Lanier Trust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the trust continues to defend itself against the Lanier Trust suit. On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge, among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation"). The complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 17, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, including the Trust are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal defendant only. SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims"). In addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining defendants in the litigation are SandRidge Mississippian Trust I, James D. Bennett, Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant only. On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order regarding the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims, finding that the plaintiffs may pursue their Exchange Act Claims against the respective remaining defendants. In its recent quarterly report, the Trust disclosed that in November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, the remaining claims in the litigation against the Trust are being asserted not only by purchasers of common units of the Trust, but also by purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II. Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. The Trust will estimate and, if the Trustee deems it appropriate, start reserving funds for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any such estimates and any final liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different than any estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any rights it may have to indemnities that may be applicable or any claims it may make in connection with the Securities Litigation. SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Faces Morning Song Bird Food Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend against a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS. In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company, along with its Chief Executive Officer, have been named as defendants in four actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have been consolidated, and, on March 31, 2017, certified as a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a class action on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert: (i) hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, and restitution); (ii) punitive and treble damages; (iii) injunctive and declaratory relief; (iv) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and (v) costs and attorneys' fees. The Company and its Chief Executive Officer dispute the plaintiffs' assertions and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated action. No accruals have been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time. There can be no assurance that future developments with respect to this action, whether as a result of an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is a manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer lawn and garden products. The company is based in Marysville, Ohio. SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Initial Settlement Reached in EZ Seed Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties in the case captioned as In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation have agreed in principle to a preliminary settlement of outstanding claims. The Company has been named as a defendant in In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), a New York and California class action lawsuit filed August 9, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts claims under false advertising and other legal theories based on a marketing statement on the Company's EZ Seed grass seed product from 2009 to 2012. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and purported class members, various forms of monetary and non-monetary relief, including statutory damages that they contend could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. The Company has defended the action vigorously, and disputes the plaintiffs' claims and theories, including the recoverability of statutory damages. In 2017, the Court eliminated certain claims, narrowed the case in certain respects, and permitted the case to continue proceeding as a class action. On August 7, 2017, the Court requested briefs on the Company's request for interlocutory review of issues relating to the recoverability of statutory damages in a class action by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, on August 31, 2017, approved that request. On January 8, 2018, however, the Second Circuit denied the interlocutory appeal request. The parties engaged in mediation on April 9, 2018 and agreed in principle to a preliminary settlement of the outstanding claims on April 10, 2018. The preliminary settlement would require the Company to pay certain attorneys' and administrative fees and provide certain payments to the class members. The preliminary settlement will not be finalized until after the court approves the settlement and a claims process determines the payments to be provided to the class members. During the three months ended March 31, 2018, the Company recognized a charge of $10.2 million for a probable loss related to this matter within the "Impairment, restructuring and other" line in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The resolution of the claims process may result in additional losses in excess of the amount accrued, however, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued would be material to, nor have a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is a manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer lawn and garden products. The company is based in Marysville, Ohio. SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes Suit Underway in Hawaii ----------------------------------------------------------- Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is defending against the case, Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong- Tie Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-00566, in federal district court in Hawaii against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc. on November 20, 2017. The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al. which is now closed. The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the Company's galvanized strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchor products used in a residential project in Honolulu, Hawaii, Ewa by Gentry. In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer, Gentry, arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a settlement in the amount of $90 million, with $54 million going to repair costs and $36 million going to attorney fees. In the Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation related to the Company's "hurricane strap" and mudsill anchor products. Gentry is demanding general, special, and consequential damages from the Company in an amount to be proven at trial. Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. The Company admits no liability and will vigorously defend the claims bought against it. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably ascertain the likelihood that it will be found responsible for substantial damages to Gentry. Based on the facts currently known, and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of the claims may be covered by its insurance policies. Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products. The company is based in Pleasanton, California. SPRINT CORP: Bid to Enforce "McGlon" Deal Denied ------------------------------------------------ Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied Sprint's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Impose Sanctions in the case, MICHAEL McGLON, On behalf of himself and others Similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, et al., (A Kansas Corporation), Defendants, Case No. 16-2099-JAR (D. Kan.). On Feb. 16, 2016, McGlon filed the collective action Complaint against Sprint, alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), by failing to pay him, and BISO Inside Sales Representatives similarly situated to him, minimum wages and overtime required by the FLSA. McGlon was represented by Class Counsel Brent Hankins and Brendan Donelon. The Court granted McGlon's motion for conditional certification on Dec. 6, 2016, and 152 opt-in Plaintiffs joined the lawsuit. The parties participated in mediation on July 6, 2017. A Settlement Agreement was negotiated and executed by Sprint on Aug. 30, 2017. On Sept. 1, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Settlement Approval, and the Court granted the motion, thereby approving the Settlement Agreement, on Sept. 6, 2017. The Settlement Agreement was not filed under seal. In performance of the Settlement Agreement, Sprint paid a total settlement sum of $365,000, with payments of $120,450 and $7,954 to the Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and costs, respectively, incurred in the prosecution of McGlon's collective action claims. On Dec. 6, 2017, Tijuana Mingo filed a complaint asserting a collective class action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA against the same Defendants, Mingo v. Sprint Corporation, et al., Case No. 17-2688-JAR, which was assigned to the Court. This case was brought by individuals who did not opt into the McGlon case, but are asserting the same claims. The complaint in Mingo describes the class sought for certification as all persons who worked as a BISO Inside Sales Representatives (or persons with similar job duties) for Sprint within three years prior to the filing of the Complaint. On Dec. 8, 2017, The Kansas City Star published an article entitled "After Sprint settles lawsuit for overtime pay, more employees sue." The article reported inter alia, that after previously settling an overtime pay dispute with 153 employees, a new collective class action lawsuit had been filed against Sprint on the same complaint. At the hearing, the Court heard testimony from Sprint's in-house counsel and the Class Counsel, Brendan Donelon and Brent Haskins. Sprint contends that the Class Counsel breached the Settlement Agreement by making statements to The Star regarding the McGlon settlement, in violation of Section 22.1, causing damage to Sprint. That section prohibits the Class Counsel and Named Plaintiff McGlon from issuing any statements to the media regarding the "Settlement" or any of its terms. Section 1.19 of the Agreement defines the term "Settlement" as the Stipulation of Settlement Agreement and Release and the terms outlined therein. Applying the principles used to interpret contracts under Kansas law, Judge Robinson finds that the Class Counsels' interpretation is correct. The plain, unambiguous language of Section 22.1 is that the Class Counsel is prohibited from issuing statements regarding the "Settlement" specifically, not "settlement" in general. However, the record shows that the Class Counsel declined to discuss the McGlon Settlement Agreement when questioned by Davis; Hankins' comments about what he had been told by the class members in the Mingo litigation who did not participate in the McGlon litigation is not a statement regarding the McGlon "Settlement" or its terms. Accordingly, based on the clear and unambiguous language in the Agreement, she finds there was no breach. Even if the Class Counsel breached the Settlement Agreement, however, the Judge finds no basis to justify an award of sanctions on these facts. The Settlement Agreement does not contain a liquidated damages or disgorgement provision for violation of Section 22.1. As the parties note, the court has "inherent power" to issue sanctions when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. The cases cited by Sprint, however, are distinguishable from the facts of the case. For these reasons, Judge Robinson denied Sprint's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Impose Sanctions. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/AmJOTg from Leagle.com. Michael McGlon, Miguel A. Berrios, Jordan Henry Brueckner, Justin Sparks, Marquis Antwan Atkison, Jarel McAdoo, Derek Thomas, Jacquelyn Brooks, Arvel Collins, Adam Christopher Smith, Jaimie Sonnier, Lenwood E. Smith, Jr, Kristina Lynn Brown, Vincent John Niglio, Yvette Pucheu, Edward Brown, Stefanie Johnson, William Saunders, Kenneth James Dunbar, Jr, Gregory D. Hood, Nathaniel Gould, Jeannie Elizabeth Crull, Thomeshea Annel Waters, Jennifer Moss, Tara Farrell, David Alan Jordan, Eulando Hayes, Andrea Troutman Coleman, Ariel Alberto Banos, Brian Cahill, Sturgis Allen Stokes, Johnathon White, Sidell Britton, Jessica D. Walker, Carlton J. Henry, Jr, Nise Cathey, Evangeline Danielle Small, Dexter Jones, Yamir Perez, Gabrielle Bennett, Sema Sebastien, Shari Valley, Jason Nixon, Nathalie Cruz, Barry Cummings, Logan Stewart, David C. Whisman, Shannon Pace, Eric Robert Pugh, Lucas W. Burroughs, Horace C. Prince, Andre Cruz, Karen Denise Robinson, Jerell Little, Andre Denson, Blake Hopkins, Ramon L. Colon, Core Henry, Victor Rosario, Clifford L. Clayton, Courtney N. Pankey, Veronnica Kelly, Wayne C Francis, Chedrick Armond Wilson, Samuel Tillman, Elisa Burke Gomez, Ariadne Gore, LaToya Walton, Zachary Roussel, Kyndra Donelson, Larissa Patterson, Jon P. Franke, Dennise Ramirez Hall, Debra D. Barnes-Chatman, Jasmine Ford, Amy Bey, Taiyanna Evette Brown, ShaVonne Bonner, Sueann Suzette Escalera, Alex Giberson, Todd Percy, Matthew Lane, Marvin Hayes, Deborah Kopatz, Na'Gel Brock, Kimberly Floyd, Yashama Cirilo, Justin Lane, Cole Hancock, Joseph Burley, Tim Cooper, Ebony Coleman, Joan A. Butler, Jessica Baker, James Vincent Scheel, III, Josiah D. Boeggeman, Alexander Brehm, Shannon Alexis B. Case, Amanda Crawford, Maxxwell A. Davis, Brandyn Flowers, Targhle Grant, Jasmin Meadows, Raul Otero, Zachary R. Ritter, Richard J. Sparks, Menea Harrison, Hamza Ali, Jonathan Boullion, Jennifer Datiz, Hilda E. Del Valle, Eugene Devaney, Mark Lake, Jr, Daniel McManus, Shanece Newman, Reynaldo Pina, Demarvis M Towles, Jonathan Angilussa, Angela Forge, Kenneth Ortiz, Ronald E Brown, III, Daniel Garcia Munoz Castillo, Jentel Manigat, Na'im Mujahid, J'mar O'Bannon, Marinee Vidal-Hernandez, Justin Lewis, Gregory Ritchey, Joshua Trask, Evette Ray, Amanda Diaz, Michael Conroy, Francisco Gonzalez, Reginald Miller, Brandon Astin, Michele Mitchell, Stefen Jones, Stephanie Cook, Yasmin Serrano, Tracy George, Rebecca Woodward, Steven Betelho, Manuel Lopez, Aerion Miles, Wayne Evans, David Ayala, Javon Walker, Alex Ocaso, Christian McShuster, Star Lester, Jeremy McNaughton, Staci Cox, Anthony Noreiga, Caleb Hinton, Ashley Keuning & Angela Caravella, Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan J. Donelon, Donelon, PC & Richard B. Hankins -- rhankins@mcguirewoods.com. Sprint Corporation & Sprint/United Management Company, Defendants, represented by Katherine R. Sinatra -- ksinatra@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP - KC/Grand. STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA: Ct. Strikes All Class Claims in "Osegueda" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ARMANDO OSEGUEDA; ROBERT PALOMINO, DABID LOMELI, JAIRO HERNANDEZ Plaintiffs, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ADAM CHRISTIANSON, Stanislaus County Sheriff, BILL DUNCAN, Captain of Adult Detention, LIEUTENANT GREG CLIFTON, Unit 1 and Unit 2 Commander, LIEUTENANT RONALD LLOYD, Commander of Bureau Administrative Services, SERGEANT STEVEN VERVER, and JAMES SHELTON Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01218-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Magistrate Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California struck all class allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint. The parties submit a stipulation to strike all class action allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint. The Magistrate Judge holds that striking of the class action allegations is proper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(f) because no motion for class certification has been or will be filed, and no substantive issues have been litigated or determined. The matter should proceed solely upon the claims of the four individual Plaintiffs Osegueda, Palomino, Lomeli, and Hernandez as outlined in the District Court's order of April 11, 2017. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Magistrate Judge struck all class allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint from the operative complaint and the matter will proceed solely upon the claims of the four individual Plaintiffs as set forth in the Court's Order of April 11, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/A4JafJ from Leagle.com. Armando Osegueda & Robert Palomino, Plaintiffs, represented by Loren L. Lunsford -- loren@thelunsfordlawfirm.com -- The Lunsford Law Firm & Amber Lunsford -- amber.lunsford@lunsfordlegal.com -- Amber Lunsford, Attorney At Law. Stanislaus County Public Safety Center, Adam Christianson, Stanislaus County Sheriff, Bill Duncan, Captain of Adult Detention, Greg Clifton, Lieutenant, Unit 1 and Unit 2 Commander, Ronald Lloyd, Lieutenant, Commander of Bureau Administrative Services, Steven Verver, Sergeant, James Shelton & Stanislaus County Sheriff's Office, Defendants, represented by Jill B. Nathan -- thefirm@jmr-law.net -- Rivera & Associates & Jonathan B. Paul, Rivera & Associates. SUNPOWER CORP: California Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ SunPower Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. On August 16, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company's securities from February 17, 2016 through August 9, 2016 (the "Class Period"). On December 9, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. Following the withdrawal of the original lead plaintiff, on August 21, 2017, the court appointed an investor group as lead plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on October 17, 2017. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5. The complaints were filed following the issuance of the Company's August 9, 2016 earnings release and revised guidance and generally allege that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On April 18, 2018, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. SunPower Corporation is a leading global energy company that delivers complete solar solutions to residential, commercial, and power plant customers worldwide through an array of hardware, software, and financing options and through utility-scale solar power system construction and development capabilities, O&M services, and "Smart Energy" solutions. The company is based in San Francisco, California. TD AMERITRADE: Order Routing-Related Suits Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against lawsuits over Order Routing. Five putative class action complaints were filed between August and October 2014 regarding TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative class action was filed in December 2014 regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders. The cases against TD Ameritrade were filed in, or transferred to, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14CV288; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:14CV289; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:14CV325; Michael Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV341; and Gerald Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV396. The case against Scottrade, Inc. was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri: Nicholas Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 4:15CV01255. The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to provide clients with best execution and routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints in Verdieck, Lerner and Lewis allege that the defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief. The Company, including Scottrade, Inc., moved to dismiss the putative class action complaints. On March 23, 2016, the U.S. District Court in Nebraska entered an order dismissing all of the state law claims in the five actions against TD Ameritrade, denying the motion to dismiss the federal securities claims in the Klein case, and permitting the plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend their complaints to assert a federal securities claim. On August 29, 2016, the U.S. District Court in Missouri entered an order dismissing without prejudice all of the state law claims against Scottrade, Inc. None of the plaintiffs in the actions filed an amended complaint. The plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker, Verdieck and Lewis cases filed appeals. The plaintiff in the Lerner case did not file an appeal and that case is considered closed. On January 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Lewis case. The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on any of the cases against TD Ameritrade. The Klein case is proceeding. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if any, that may result. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and related technology-based financial services to retail investors, traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in the United States. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska. TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Aequitas Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in the Aequitas Securities Litigation. An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank & Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016. A second amended putative class action complaint was filed on September 8, 2017, in which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant. The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities of Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after June 9, 2010. Other groups of plaintiffs have filed five non-class action lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against these and other defendants: Walter Wurster, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug. 11, 2016), Kenneth Pommier, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV36439 (filed Nov. 3, 2016), Charles Ramsdell, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec. 2, 2016), Charles Layton, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 17CV42915 (filed October 2, 2017) and John Cavanagh, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 18CV09052 (filed March 7, 2018). FINRA arbitrations have also been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc. The claims in these actions include allegations that the sales of Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants participated and materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were made. While the factual allegations differ in various respects among the cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that: TD Ameritrade customers purchased more than $140 million of Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade served as custodian for Aequitas securities; recommended and referred investors to financial advisors as part of its advisor referral program for the purpose of purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in marketing the securities; recommended the securities; provided assurances to investors about the safety of the securities; and developed a market for the securities. In the Ciuffitelli putative class action, plaintiffs allege that more than 1,500 investors were owed more than $600 million on the Aequitas securities they purchased. In the five non-class action lawsuits, approximately 200 named plaintiffs collectively allege a total of approximately $125 million in losses plus other damages. In the Wurster and Pommier cases, the Court, on TD Ameritrade's motion, dismissed the claims by those plaintiffs who were TD Ameritrade customers, in favor of arbitration. Discovery is ongoing. The Ramsdell and Layton cases have been stayed. On February 23, 2018, the Court in the Wurster and Pommier cases denied TD Ameritrade's motion to dismiss the claims by the plaintiffs who were not TD Ameritrade customers. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this litigation. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of this litigation, or the potential losses, if any, that may result. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and related technology-based financial services to retail investors, traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in the United States. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska. TRINITY HEATING: Ct. Denies Bids to Dismiss "Boger" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAN BOGER, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY HEATING & AIR, INC., d/b/a TRINITY SOLAR, and MEDIA MIX 365, Defendants, Civil Action No. TDC-17-1729 (D. Md.), Judge Theodore G. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the motions to dismiss filed by Trinity and Media Mix. Boger has brought the putative class action against the Defendants, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("MTCPA"). Boger alleges that Trinity and Media Mix violated these laws by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to call his cellular telephone without his consent. Trinity, a company that installs solar power systems, uses telemarketing to reach new customers. To that end, it hired Media Mix to conduct a telemarketing campaign on its behalf. As part of this campaign, Media Mix used an ATDS, which places the calls automatically, then transfers them to live operators only when the calls are answered. An ATDS thus allows telemarketers to make thousands of calls in a cost-effective manner. Media Mix called Plaintiff Boger on his cellular telephone at least three times between January 2017 and May 2017. All of these calls were made without Boger's consent. Boger had placed that telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry more than five years earlier and did not otherwise consent to receive calls from the Defendants. Boger answered the calls on Jan. 31, 2017 and May 11, 2017. Boger alleges that he was aware that both of these calls were made with an ATDS because upon answering them, he heard a lengthy pause and then a click before a live person came on the line and told him that the call was made on behalf of the Solar Research Group, which Boger alleges is a pseudonym for Trinity. During the May 11 call, the initial speaker asked Boger several questions, then connected Boger to a Trinity employee, who attempted to enroll him as a new Trinity customer. Boger then filed the putative class action on behalf of the thousands of persons who, he alleges, have received similar ATDS- initiated calls from Defendants over the past four years. Pending before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss, one filed by Trinity and the other by Media Mix. In their separate Motions, they seek dismissal of the MTCPA claim on the grounds that it is not an independent cause of action distinct from the TCPA claim, such that Boger may not receive statutory damages under both the TCPA and MTCPA for the same conduct. They contend that the MTCPA is merely an enabling statute that empowers the Plaintiffs to bring a federal TCPA claim in a Maryland court. The Defendants thus argue that asserting both an MTCPA claim and a TCPA claim based on the same conduct is inappropriate and duplicative. Judge Chuang finds that based on the history of the TCPA and the MTCPA, both the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and the Maryland Court of Appeals have stated in dicta that it is likely that the General Assembly enacted the MTCPA merely to enable a private right of action under the TCPA, not to create new causes of action. The Defendants therefore argue that the MTCPA claim must be dismissed because it is not a separate cause of action. However, the Court of Appeals of Maryland has never held that a plaintiff may not assert both a TCPA and an MTCPA claim arising from the same factual basis. Indeed, in a separate case decided a year after Ehrlich, the Court of Special Appeals referred to the MTCPA as a "similar, but distinct" statute from the TCPA. Significantly, a comparison of the statutes reveals notable differences that support the view that an MTCPA claim may be asserted separately. In particular, successful plaintiffs may recover attorney's fees under the MTCPA, but such fees are not available under the TCPA. Finally, the TCPA and the MTCPA have different statutes of limitations: a TCPA claim must be brought within four years, while an MTCPA claim must be filed within three years. These differences, according to the Judge, undermine the claim that the MTCPA is not a freestanding cause of action and is nothing more than an enabling statute for bringing TCPA claims in state court. Here, where Boger correctly argues that dismissal of the MTCPA claim would eliminate the only statutory basis for the recovery of attorney's fees, the Court cannot conclude that dismissal of the MTCPA claim would merely eliminate duplicative claims. The motion to dismiss will therefore be denied. In so ruling, Judge Chuang does not decide whether Boger may recover damages under both the TCPA and MTCPA for the same alleged injury. Although the Defendants sought to conflate this question with the issue whether the MTCPA is a distinct cause of action, these are separate questions. Generally, a plaintiff may not receive a double recovery under different legal theories for the same injury. At least one judge in the District has expressed doubts that plaintiffs may recover statutory damages under both the TCPA and MTCPA for the same violations. The Judge needs not resolve the issue at this early stage of the case. As discussed, the MTCPA claim will not be dismissed, at a minimum, to allow Boger to preserve a possible claim for attorney's fees. The elements of the TCPA and MTCPA claims are effectively the same, leaving the scope of discovery unaffected by the MTCPA claim's continued presence in this litigation. The question of entitlement to damages under both statutes can be addressed through briefing at a later stage of the case when the issue of the amount of damages must be decided. For these reasons, Judge Chuang denied Trinity's Motion to Dismiss, and Media Mix's Motion to Dismiss. A separate Order will issue. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/4wunKi from Leagle.com. Dan Boger, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward A. Broderick -- ted@broderick- law.com -- Broderick and Paronich PC, pro hac vice & Stephen Howard Ring -- shr@ringlaw.us -- Stephen H Ring PC. Trinity Heating & Air, Inc., doing business as Trinity Solar, Defendant, represented by Genevieve C. Bradley -- gbradley@rothjackson.com -- Roth Doner Jackson, PLC & Mitchell N. Roth -- mroth@rothjackson.com -- Roth Jackson, pro hac vice. Media Mix 365, LLC, Defendant, pro se. TURNBULL & ASSER: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turnbull & Asser (USA), LLC. The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Turnbull & Asser (USA), LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05654 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018). Turnbull & Asser (USA), LLC is a furniture store in Greenwich, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed "Gonzales" With Leave to Amend ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02264-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Gonzales brings the action on his own behalf and as a putative class action for Lyft drivers whose electronic communications and whereabouts were allegedly intercepted, accessed, monitored, and/or transmitted by the Defendants. Lyft App provides technology that operates similar to a taxi company's dispatch system. A rider requests a ride using this application on his or her phone. The locations of nearby Lyft drivers are displayed to the rider as dots on a map, along with the estimated price and wait time for arrival once the ride request is submitted. When a driver is ready to accept work, the driver swipes a switch on the Lyft App, directing the Lyft App to continuously transmit the driver's geolocation data and his or her willingness to accept work to servers maintained by Lyft. Lyft, acting as the driver's agent, forwards a driver's geolocation and willingness to drive to those requesting a ride. Uber offers technology that competes with the Lyft App and operates in the same geographic regions as Lyft. Starting in 2014 or earlier and continuing into 2016, Uber secretly used 'Hell spyware' to access servers and smartphones owned and operated by the Plaintiff, the Class Members, and Lyft. The spyware extracted information from Lyft by posing as Lyft customers in search of rides. Uber used the fraudulently received geolocation data and driver identifiers to create grid- like detection nets over cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. Uber used the data collected in conjunction with other databases to learn personal details about Lyft drivers including, but not limited to, the drivers' full names, their home addresses, when and where they typically work each day and for how many hours, and where they take breaks. It was able to use this data to determine the identities of the drivers' rider customers. Uber combined the data harvested by Hell with Uber's internal records, including historical location data, to identify Lyft drivers who also worked for Uber. Uber used the information gleaned from Hell to direct more frequent and more profitable trips to Uber drivers who also used the Lyft App. By inundating these drivers with Uber rides, Uber was able to discourage drivers from accepting work on the Lyft platform, reducing the effective supply of available Lyft drivers. With the supply of Lyft drivers reduced, Lyft customers faced longer wait times. As a result, Lyft riders would cancel the ride requested with Lyft and request a new ride from Uber, and Lyft drivers experienced decreased earnings. Over time, this would reduce the effectiveness of the Lyft App, thus harming drivers such as the Plaintiff and the absent Class Members. The Plaintiff filed an initial complaint seeking injunctive relief and damages based on four claims: (1) Federal Wiretap Act as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, (2) the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), (3) the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and (4) common law invasion of privacy. The Defendants moved to dismiss all four claims. The Court granted the Defendants' motion with leave to amend. The Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint seeking the same relief under the same causes of action with two additional claims: (1) the Federal Stored Communication Act and (2) the California Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Thereafter, the Defendants filed the now pending motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff alleges that when he activates the Lyft App he sends Lyft his unique Lyft driver identification, his precise geolocation data, his affirmation that he is willing to provide rides to drivers, and an estimated price for the ride. With the possible exception of the estimated price, Judge Corley finds that this information does not qualify as the "contents" of a communication within the meaning of the Wiretap Act. In other words, simply opening a webpage or mobile application is not a communication with content. Accordingly, she finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to satisfy the "contents" prong of the Wiretap Act. The Plaintiff also does not allege facts that plausibly suggest that Uber "intercepted" any of his communications. There were no messages between existing Lyft drivers and Lyft riders that were copied contemporaneously by Uber; instead, as alleged, the acquired messages traveled directly and only between Lyft and Uber acting as a Lyft rider. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged an "interception" under the Wiretap Act. In light of the Plaintiff's failure to plausibly plead that Uber intercepted the content of a communication from the Plaintiff, the Judge declines to consider Uber's other arguments. She dismissed with leave to amend the federal Wiretap Act, but only to the extent Plaintiff can allege consistent with Rule 11 that Uber intercepted the content of a communication from the Plaintiff. As the Plaintiff has not alleged facts that plausibly suggest that the communications Uber allegedly accessed without authorization are "backups," the Stored Communications Act claim must be dismissed. The Judge holds that the dismissal will be with leave to amend to allege facts that show that Uber accessed communications in "electronic storage." As with the Plaintiff's CIPA claim, the Judge explains that CIPA is California's anti-wiretapping and anti-eavesdropping statute that prohibits unauthorized interceptions of communications in order to protect the right of privacy. She finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged that Uber "eavesdropped" on communications between Lyft drivers and legitimate Lyft riders or between Lyft drivers and Lyft. Accordingly, his Section 632 CIPA claim fails. Because the Plaintiff consented to the tracking of his vehicle through his cellphone when he signed up to be a Lyft driver, his Section 637.7 claim fails and will be dismissed without leave to amend. The Judge dismissed with leave to amend the Plaintiff' claim under the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act is dismissed with leave to amend to the extent Plaintiff can allege facts that plausibly suggest Uber violated a particular subsection of the Act. Neither Uber nor the Court should have to guess how the Plaintiff contends these subsections were violated. The Plaintiff must allege that Uber accessed his computer, computer system, etc. He has not done so. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's reference to his allegation that Uber obtained the names of Lyft's customers is puzzling as he does not explain how that translates into a serious invasion of his right to privacy. Accordingly, she grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's constitutional invasion of privacy claim with leave to amend. Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has alleged standing to bring a UCL claim. She is unpersuaded that at this stage of the litigation the Plaintiff cannot pursue equitable relief. For the reasons she described, Judge Corley granted Uber's motion to dismiss as to all claims except the UCL claim. She granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint as to all claims except the CIPA section 637.7 claim as amendment as to that claim would be futile. She did not give the Plaintiff leave to add any new claims; leave is only to correct, if possible, efficiencies in the allegations of the claims already pled. The second amended complaint will be by May 18, 2018. The Judge granted the Uber's request for judicial notice of Lyft's terms of service given the document is referenced in the FAC and its accuracy is not reasonably questioned. She denied the Plaintiff's request for judicial notice given the Jacobs letter from the Waymo litigation is not discussed in the FAC, nor relevant to the matter. The Order disposes of Docket No. 38. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/2oziqx from Leagle.com. Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Ling Yue Kuang - - lkuang@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr. -- mburton@audetlaw.com -- Audet and Partners, LLP & Michael Andrew McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick Leo Oot, Jr. -- oot@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Lee -- elee@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy Bacon L.L.P., John K. Sherk, III -- jsherk@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. Uber USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Raiser-CA, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Patrick Leo Oot, Jr., Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, John K. Sherk, III, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin Underhill, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. UNION BANKSHARES: "Rowe" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Union Bankshares Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that Shannon Rowe has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, terminating her lawsuit without prejudice. On September 19, 2017, Shannon Rowe, a purported stockholder of Xenith, filed a putative class action lawsuit (the "Rowe Lawsuit"), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, against Xenith and its directors. The Company was not named as a defendant in the Rowe Lawsuit. The plaintiff in the action alleged that the Company's registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC, as amended, relating to the merger omitted certain material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual defendants were liable for those omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The relief sought in the lawsuit included preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the completion of the merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the merger was completed, costs and attorneys' fees. On February 20, 2018, Ms. Rowe filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, terminating the Rowe Lawsuit without prejudice. * * * Union Bankshares said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the putative class action lawsuit filed by Paul Parshall has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On September 7, 2017, Paul Parshall, a purported shareholder of Xenith, filed a putative class action lawsuit (the "Parshall Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Xenith, its current directors, and the Company on behalf of all public shareholders of Xenith. The plaintiff in the action alleged that the Company's registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC, as amended, relating to the Pending Merger omitted certain material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual defendants were liable for those omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The relief sought in the lawsuit included preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the completion of the Pending Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the Pending Merger were completed, costs and attorneys' fees. On November 6, 2017, Mr. Parshall filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, terminating the Parshall Lawsuit without prejudice. Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, Union Bankshares Corporation is the holding company for Union Bank & Trust, which has 150 branches, 39 of which are operated as Xenith Bank, a division of Union Bank & Trust of Richmond, Virginia, and approximately 216 ATMs located throughout Virginia and in portions of Maryland and North Carolina. Union Bank & Trust also operates Shore Premier Finance, a specialty marine lender. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed "Gonzales" With Leave to Amend ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02264-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Gonzales brings the action on his own behalf and as a putative class action for Lyft drivers whose electronic communications and whereabouts were allegedly intercepted, accessed, monitored, and/or transmitted by the Defendants. Lyft App provides technology that operates similar to a taxi company's dispatch system. A rider requests a ride using this application on his or her phone. The locations of nearby Lyft drivers are displayed to the rider as dots on a map, along with the estimated price and wait time for arrival once the ride request is submitted. When a driver is ready to accept work, the driver swipes a switch on the Lyft App, directing the Lyft App to continuously transmit the driver's geolocation data and his or her willingness to accept work to servers maintained by Lyft. Lyft, acting as the driver's agent, forwards a driver's geolocation and willingness to drive to those requesting a ride. Uber offers technology that competes with the Lyft App and operates in the same geographic regions as Lyft. Starting in 2014 or earlier and continuing into 2016, Uber secretly used 'Hell spyware' to access servers and smartphones owned and operated by the Plaintiff, the Class Members, and Lyft. The spyware extracted information from Lyft by posing as Lyft customers in search of rides. Uber used the fraudulently received geolocation data and driver identifiers to create grid- like detection nets over cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. Uber used the data collected in conjunction with other databases to learn personal details about Lyft drivers including, but not limited to, the drivers' full names, their home addresses, when and where they typically work each day and for how many hours, and where they take breaks. It was able to use this data to determine the identities of the drivers' rider customers. Uber combined the data harvested by Hell with Uber's internal records, including historical location data, to identify Lyft drivers who also worked for Uber. Uber used the information gleaned from Hell to direct more frequent and more profitable trips to Uber drivers who also used the Lyft App. By inundating these drivers with Uber rides, Uber was able to discourage drivers from accepting work on the Lyft platform, reducing the effective supply of available Lyft drivers. With the supply of Lyft drivers reduced, Lyft customers faced longer wait times. As a result, Lyft riders would cancel the ride requested with Lyft and request a new ride from Uber, and Lyft drivers experienced decreased earnings. Over time, this would reduce the effectiveness of the Lyft App, thus harming drivers such as the Plaintiff and the absent Class Members. The Plaintiff filed an initial complaint seeking injunctive relief and damages based on four claims: (1) Federal Wiretap Act as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, (2) the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), (3) the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and (4) common law invasion of privacy. The Defendants moved to dismiss all four claims. The Court granted the Defendants' motion with leave to amend. The Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint seeking the same relief under the same causes of action with two additional claims: (1) the Federal Stored Communication Act and (2) the California Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Thereafter, the Defendants filed the now pending motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff alleges that when he activates the Lyft App he sends Lyft his unique Lyft driver identification, his precise geolocation data, his affirmation that he is willing to provide rides to drivers, and an estimated price for the ride. With the possible exception of the estimated price, Judge Corley finds that this information does not qualify as the "contents" of a communication within the meaning of the Wiretap Act. In other words, simply opening a webpage or mobile application is not a communication with content. Accordingly, she finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to satisfy the "contents" prong of the Wiretap Act. The Plaintiff also does not allege facts that plausibly suggest that Uber "intercepted" any of his communications. There were no messages between existing Lyft drivers and Lyft riders that were copied contemporaneously by Uber; instead, as alleged, the acquired messages traveled directly and only between Lyft and Uber acting as a Lyft rider. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged an "interception" under the Wiretap Act. In light of the Plaintiff's failure to plausibly plead that Uber intercepted the content of a communication from the Plaintiff, the Judge declines to consider Uber's other arguments. She dismissed with leave to amend the federal Wiretap Act, but only to the extent Plaintiff can allege consistent with Rule 11 that Uber intercepted the content of a communication from the Plaintiff. As the Plaintiff has not alleged facts that plausibly suggest that the communications Uber allegedly accessed without authorization are "backups," the Stored Communications Act claim must be dismissed. The Judge holds that the dismissal will be with leave to amend to allege facts that show that Uber accessed communications in "electronic storage." As with the Plaintiff's CIPA claim, the Judge explains that CIPA is California's anti-wiretapping and anti-eavesdropping statute that prohibits unauthorized interceptions of communications in order to protect the right of privacy. She finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged that Uber "eavesdropped" on communications between Lyft drivers and legitimate Lyft riders or between Lyft drivers and Lyft. Accordingly, his Section 632 CIPA claim fails. Because the Plaintiff consented to the tracking of his vehicle through his cellphone when he signed up to be a Lyft driver, his Section 637.7 claim fails and will be dismissed without leave to amend. The Judge dismissed with leave to amend the Plaintiff' claim under the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act is dismissed with leave to amend to the extent Plaintiff can allege facts that plausibly suggest Uber violated a particular subsection of the Act. Neither Uber nor the Court should have to guess how the Plaintiff contends these subsections were violated. The Plaintiff must allege that Uber accessed his computer, computer system, etc. He has not done so. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's reference to his allegation that Uber obtained the names of Lyft's customers is puzzling as he does not explain how that translates into a serious invasion of his right to privacy. Accordingly, she grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's constitutional invasion of privacy claim with leave to amend. Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has alleged standing to bring a UCL claim. She is unpersuaded that at this stage of the litigation the Plaintiff cannot pursue equitable relief. For the reasons she described, Judge Corley granted Uber's motion to dismiss as to all claims except the UCL claim. She granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint as to all claims except the CIPA section 637.7 claim as amendment as to that claim would be futile. She did not give the Plaintiff leave to add any new claims; leave is only to correct, if possible, efficiencies in the allegations of the claims already pled. The second amended complaint will be by May 18, 2018. The Judge granted the Uber's request for judicial notice of Lyft's terms of service given the document is referenced in the FAC and its accuracy is not reasonably questioned. She denied the Plaintiff's request for judicial notice given the Jacobs letter from the Waymo litigation is not discussed in the FAC, nor relevant to the matter. The Order disposes of Docket No. 38. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/2oziqx from Leagle.com. Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Ling Yue Kuang - - lkuang@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr. -- mburton@audetlaw.com -- Audet and Partners, LLP & Michael Andrew McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick Leo Oot, Jr. -- oot@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Lee -- elee@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy Bacon L.L.P., John K. Sherk, III -- jsherk@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. Uber USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Raiser-CA, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Patrick Leo Oot, Jr., Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, John K. Sherk, III, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin Underhill, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Drop Teamsters' Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company has filed a motion to dismiss the case, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et al. In December 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against UHS, and certain UHS officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws relating to the disclosures made in public filings associated with practices at our behavioral health facilities. The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs. The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817- LS). In September, 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an amended complaint. In December 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Universal Health said "We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter." Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and Other segments. The company is based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. USANA HEALTH: Bid to Drop "Rumbaugh" Suit Shelved ------------------------------------------------- Usana Health Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties are awaiting the court's decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss in "Rumbaugh" suit. On February 13, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit (Rumbaugh v. USANA Health Sciences Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00106) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah by April Rumbaugh, a purported shareholder of USANA, alleging that the Company failed to disclose that (i) the Company's BabyCare subsidiary had engaged in improper reimbursement practices in China, (ii) these practices constituted violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or FCPA, (iii) as such, the Company's China revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and unlikely to be sustainable, and (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, was likely to subject the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny. On behalf of herself and a putative class of purchasers of USANA stock between March 14, 2014 and February 7, 2017, the plaintiff asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff sought, among other things, an award of damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. The lawsuit named as defendants the Company; is former Co- Chief Executive Officer, David A. Wentz; and our Chief Leadership Development Officer, Paul A. Jones. On June 2, 2017, the court appointed Chi Wah On (another purported shareholder of USANA) as lead plaintiff. On August 4, 2017, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint seeking similar relief. This new complaint asserted additional allegations and added the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Kevin G. Guest, and Chief Financial Officer, G. Douglas Hekking, as defendants. On September 18, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and briefing was completed on November 8, 2017. The motion to dismiss was argued on April 25, 2018 and a decision is pending. Usana Health Sciences said "The Company believes that the action is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted." * * * According to a Minute Order, after arguments were heard and discussion held, the Court takes under advisement the Motion to Dismiss. Judge Dee Benson presides over the case. USANA Health Sciences, Inc. develops and manufactures high- quality, science-based nutritional and personal care/skincare products that are distributed internationally through a network marketing system, which is a form of direct selling. The company is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Merkin & Smith, et al. Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that a fifth joint status report has been filed with the District Court in the case Merkin & Smith, et al. On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, which the Court denied on February 4, 2014. On March 5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014, the district court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal. On February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to compel arbitration. On March 22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a petition for rehearing. On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February 29, 2016 decision and issued a new order reversing the district court's order and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition for rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending arbitration. A joint status report was filed with the District Court on December 23, 2016. A second joint status report was filed with the District Court on March 23, 2017. Vonage Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a third joint status report was filed with the District Court on June 27, 2017. A fourth joint status report was filed with the District Court on September 26, 2017. A fifth joint status report was filed with the District Court on December 26, 2017, the Company said in its recent quarterly report. Vonage Holdings Corp. provides communications services connecting people through cloud-connected devices worldwide. It offers various business services, including basic dial tone, call queue, conferencing, call groups, mobile functionality, CRM integration, and detailed analytics, as well as Vonage Business Cloud and Vonage Enterprise services. The company is based in Holmdel, New Jersey. WESTERN DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that the Company continues to defend a consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Two complaints are brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between April 2014 and April 2015. The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, damages and fees and costs. In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund (collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group"). In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a further amended complaint. In June 2017, the District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer and provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in virtually every industry. The company is based in San Jose, California. WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Revised Briefing Sched in "Rushing" OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, granted the parties' briefing schedule regarding the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ"). On April 10, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with a hearing date of May 16, 2018. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of the Northern District of California, and the deadlines set forth on CM-ECF, the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' MSJ is due by April 24, 2018, and the Defendants' Reply is due by May 1, 2018. The Plaintiff has requested additional time to potentially conduct discovery and respond to the Defendants' MSJ. Since that extension would cause the Reply date to conflict with Memorial Day, the parties have agreed upon a briefing schedule which accommodates the Plaintiff's request and the Memorial Day holiday, subject to the Court's approval. Therefore, the parties stipulated and Judge Orrick granted that the briefing schedule on the Defendants' MSJ will be revised as follows: (i) May 18, 2018 - the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' MSJ; (ii) June 1, 2018 - the Defendants' Reply in support of their MSJ; and (iii) June 13, 2018 - Hearing on MSJ. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/Z7849e from Leagle.com. William Rushing, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Richard Baker, Esq. -- richard@bakerlawpc.com -- BAKER LAW PC, Audra Elizabeth Petrolle, Esq. -- apetrolle@roselawgroup.com -- Kathryn Honecker, Esq. -- khonecker@roselawgroup.com -- Lauren Marie Nageotte, Esq. -- lnageotte@roselawgroup.com -- ROSE LAW GROUP, pc, pro hac vice. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc., a California corporation & Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, represented by Eric James DiIulio, Esq. -- ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com -- Benjamin Okhaifo Aigboboh, Esq. -- baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com - - Dylan John Price, Esq. -- dprice@sheppardmullin.com -- P. Craig Cardon, Esq. -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP. WILLIS TOWERS: Bid to Dismiss Proxy Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss in the case entitled, In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation, is pending. On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management ('ValueAct'), and certain current and former directors and officers of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserts claims against certain defendants under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange Act') for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged "control person" liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading statements. The complaint further contends that the allegedly false and misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson to accept inadequate Merger consideration. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the University of California ('Regents') as Lead Plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ('Bernstein') as Lead Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the consolidated action "In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation," Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA. On March 9, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which motions are currently pending. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WILLIS TOWERS: Faces City of Fort Myers Pension Fund Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is defending against a putative class action suit entitled, City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al. On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two additional purported former stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson filed putative class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers- Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155, respectively. Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia action, the complaints assert claims against the former directors of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WILLIS TOWERS: Regents' Bid for Lead Plaintiff Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the motion of The Regents of the University of California for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel in a class action lawsuit remains pending. On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. Haley, Casserley, and Ubben, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned The Regents of the University of California v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0166. Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia action, the complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class. On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery. Regents' motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel remains pending. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement in "Sanchez" Litigation Now Final ----------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the settlement in the Elma Sanchez, et al., litigation is now final. On August 6, 2013, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit against the California Public Employees' Retirement System ('CalPERS') in Los Angeles County Superior Court. On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added as defendants several members of CalPERS' Board of Administration and three Legacy Towers Watson entities, Towers Watson & Co., Towers Perrin, and Tillinghast-Towers Perrin ('Towers Perrin'). Plaintiffs' claims all relate to a self-funded, non-profit Long Term Care Program that CalPERS established in 1995 (the 'LTC Program'). Plaintiffs' claims seek unspecified damages allegedly resulting from CalPERS' 2012 decision to implement in 2015 and 2016 an 85 percent increase in the premium rates of certain of the long term care policies it issued between 1995 and 2004 (the '85% Increase'). The amended complaint alleges claims against CalPERS for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also includes a single cause of action against Towers Perrin for professional negligence relating to actuarial services Towers Perrin provided to CalPERS relating to the LTC Program between 1995 and 2004. Plaintiffs principally allege that CalPERS mismanaged the LTC Program and its investment assets in multiple respects and breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and other class members by impermissibly imposing the 85% Increase to make up for investment losses. Plaintiffs also allege that Towers Perrin recommended inadequate initial premium rates at the outset of the LTC Program and used unspecified inappropriate assumptions in its annual valuations for CalPERS. Plaintiffs claim that Towers Perrin's allegedly negligent acts and omissions, prior to the end of its retainer in 2004, contributed to the need for the 85% Increase. In May 2014, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by CalPERS and Towers Perrin addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint. On January 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The certified class as currently defined includes those long term care policy holders whose policies were "subject to" the 85% Increase. The court thereafter set an October 2, 2017 trial date. In May 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. The court agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary judgment which was initially scheduled to be heard on February 3, 2017. The motion was then fully briefed, and the hearing date was thereafter moved to March 8, 2017. On March 1, 2017, Towers Perrin and Plaintiffs participated in a mediation and reached a settlement in principle. Pursuant to the settlement in principle, in exchange for a dismissal of the claims of all class members and a release of Towers Perrin by all class members, Towers Perrin would pay a total of $9.75 million into an interest-bearing settlement fund, to be used to reimburse class counsel's costs, and for later distribution to class members as approved by the Court. This proposed settlement amount was accrued during the three months ended March 31, 2017. A formal settlement agreement was submitted to the Court for its preliminary approval on May 18, 2017. On October 25, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and granted the Company's unopposed motion for a good faith settlement determination. At the hearing on final approval held on January 26, 2018, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. Class members who properly objected to the settlement had standing to appeal by April 9, 2018. No class members filed an appeal and, therefore, the judgment is now final. The settlement amount was scheduled to be paid by June 8, 2018. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. ZIMMER BIOMET: Continues to Defend "Shah" Suit in Indiana --------------------------------------------------------- Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in the lawsuit, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al. On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the company, two of its officers and one of its now former officers as defendants. On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously named, current and former members of the company's Board of Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with secondary offerings of the company's common stock by certain selling stockholders in 2016. On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriters without prejudice. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and former officers and Board members previously named, certain former stockholders of ours who sold shares of the Company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016. The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions about the Company's compliance with FDA regulations and our ability to continue to accelerate the Company's organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016. The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on December 20, 2017, and plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. According to the case docket, these entities filed on May 18, 2018, their Reply to the response to the Motions to Dismiss: -- GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI GMBH & CO. KG, GS Capital Partners VI Offshore Fund, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Parallel, L.P., GS LVB Co-Invest, L.P., Goldman Sachs BMET Investors, L.P., Goldman Sachs BMET Investors Offshore Holdings, L.P., PEP Bass Holdings, LLC, Private Equity Partners 2004 Direct Investment Fund L.P., Private Equity Partners 2005 Direct L.P., Private Equity Partners IX Direct L.P.; -- KKR Biomet LLC, Michael W Michelson, Jeffrey K Rhodes, TPG FOF V-A, L.P., TPG FOF V-B, L.P., TPG LVB Co-Invest LLC, TPG Partners IV, L.P., TPG Partners V, L.P.; and -- Christopher B Begley, Betsy J Bernard, Paul M Bisaro, Gail K Boudreaux, Tony W Collins, David C Dvorak, Michael J. Farrell, Daniel P. Florin, Larry Glasscock, Robert A Hagemann, Arthur J Higgins, Robert J. Marshall, Jr, Cecil B Pickett PhD, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. Zimmer Biomet said "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we and the individual defendants are defending it vigorously." Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company is based in Warsaw, Indiana. ********* 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 * * *