/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190405.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 5, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 69 Headlines 1AND2 AUTOMOTIVE: Burks Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA 2 GOLD: Tenants' Class Action Over Hurricane Sandy Flooding Nixed 247.AI INC: Ford Appeals N.D. Calif. Decision to 9th Circuit 319 MEAT MARKET: Soriano et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages A-S MEDICATION: Appeals Ruling in PHI Suit to 7th Circuit AFSCME: Public Union Dues Fights Persist AMERICAN HONDA: Conti Sues Over Defective Vehicles AMERICAN WEB: Curry Appeals Ruling in Solomon Suit to 4th Circuit ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit ARRIGO ENTERPRISES: Reichbart Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing AUTOMATED HEALTH: Hunter Sues over Biometric Data Collection AXOS BANK: McSwain Suit Asserts California Law Violations AZCONA INC: Underpays General Laborers, Reyes et al. Allege BARCLAYS BANK: Still Faces Antitrust Suits over Interchange Fees BARK SHOP INC: Hernandez Hits Illegal SMS Ad Blasts BEST BUY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action BIG FISH: Slapped With Class Action Lawsuit Again BOXER PROPERTY: Kelsall Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation BRITISH AMERICAN: 2 Class Actions vs. Souza Cruz Pending in Brazil BRITISH AMERICAN: Young's ETS Class Suit Still Pending BROADCOM INC: High Court to Hear Oral Argument This Month BSB BANCORP: Parshall Drops Suit over People's United Merger BUCCINI/POLLIN: Settles Homeowners' Construction Class Action BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Ferrell et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal. CALAVERA, CA: Class Action Over Marijuana Cultivation to Proceed CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Faces Class Action Over Union Fees CAMPING WORLD: Ronge and Strougo Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit CAMPING WORLD: Seeks to Dismiss IUOE Complaint in NY State Court CARBEL USA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CAREFIRST INC: Appeal Filed in Attias Data Breach Suit CARTERSVILLE, GA: Cartersville 70' Attorneys File Class Action CASA PACIFICA: Faces Damron's Labor Suit CITYWIDE PARKING: Faces Kemi Wage and Hour Suit in California COLUMBUS, OH: Pennington Sues Over 1st Amendment Rights Violation CONAGRA BRANDS: April 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline CONTINENTAL HOSTS: Rendon Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages COSTCO WHOLESALE: Johnson and Chen Class Suits Consolidated COVENANT TRANSPORT: Underpays Drivers, Tabizon Suit Alleges COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Faces Tabizon Class Action in Calif. CVS HEALTH: Labourers' Pension Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. DAKKOTA INTEGRATED: Fox Sues over Use of Biometric Data DELTA AIR LINES: Denies Workers Overtime Pay, Fan Suit Says DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM LLC: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in Davis Suit DON DEO: Sierra Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages & Regular Pay DRAPER AND KRAMER: Kanacevic Sues over Biometric Data Collection ELITE LIMOUSINE: Buttar Sues over Contract Breach ESMARALDA FASHIONS: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Aguilar Suit Says EXPRESS FASHION: Chacon Suit Removed to C.D. California FEHE ENTERPRISES: Wallace Seeks Overtime Pay FRONTLINE ASSET: Rutledge Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia GAP (ITM) INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Alleges GLOBALSCAPE INC: Settlement in Giovagnoli Wins Final Approval GREENSKY INC: IPO-Related Securities Class Actions Underway HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Abboud Sues over Auto-Dialed Calls HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Keippel Hits Share Price Drop HILTON WORLWIDE: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in New York HYUNDAI MOTORS: Rexroad et al. Sue over Direct Injection Defect IMMUNE DESIGN: Witmer Says Solicitation Statement Misleading INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL: Lopez Brings ADA Class Action in S.D.N.Y. INUVO INC: Bid to Dismiss Franchi Class Suit Still Pending INUVO INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Thomas Class Action Underway IRON MOUNTAIN: Removes Modica Suit to E.D. California ISLAND YACHT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KA FAI MANAGEMENT: Mishandled Security Deposits, Li et al. Say KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Class Suits Pending KAUFMAN ENTERPRISES: Pierre Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KITE PHARMA: Aguilar Files Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct. KRAFT HEINZ: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS Inc.'s Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing LORI LOUGHLIN: Faces Class Action Over College Admissions Scandal LSCI INC: Becker Suit Asserts TCPA Violation MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Putative Class Action in New Jersey Underway MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Meter et al. Suit Moves to D. Maryland MARRONE BIO: July 11 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MASSACHUSETTS: District Judge Faces Liviz Suit in D. Mass. MBT FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Pauli Class Suit Underway MBT FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Viky Class Action Underway MCCARTHY'S BOAT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MDL 2804: Jefferson County to Retain Legal Counsel in Opioid Suit MDL 2875: Duffy Suit v. Aurobindo over Valsartan Consolidated MIDLAND CREDIT: Timmons Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York MONSANTO COMPANY: Campau & Meng Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Castleberrys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Clarks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Dangels Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Jung Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Products Causes Cancer, Graef Alleges MONSANTO COMPANY: Tomlinson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MOPHIE INC: Dennis Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Ruling Still Pending NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Illinois NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Smith Insurance Row Removed to E.D. Pa. NCAA: Johnson Claims Damages Over Injuries Sustained NCAA: Porcelli Sues Over Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete NEW YORK: Faces Dorce Suit over Civil Rights Violation NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Kohmetscher Suit in S.D. Florida NISOURCE INC: Kahn Swick Probes Officers and Directors NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Post Commanders, Walker Says NORTHERN BIRCH: Samarasinghe Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay NORTHERN OIL: Jeffrey Fries Class Action Dismissed NOSTRAND CRICKET: Duran Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums NOTTINGHAM'S LLC: James Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Ct. OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Menaldi Case Settlement Has Final Court Approval OLIN CORPORATION: Amrex Files Anti-trust Suit in New York Ct. ORACLE CORP: Kahn Swick Officers and Directors ORACLE CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Action ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit over Hamilton Merger Underway ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Still Faces SEPTA Putative Class Action OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Nallagonda Suit Dismissed with Prejudice OWENS CORNING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Gonzalez Class Suit OWENS REALTY: Defending Against Suit over Ready Capital Merger PINGTAN MARINE: Bid to Dismiss Zheng Class Suit Still Pending POLARITYTE INC: Utah Consolidated Securities Class Suit Ongoing PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Combs Sues over Debt Collection Practices PRECISION DRILLING: Dyck Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PROTHENA CORP: Still Defends Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jury Rules Firm's Actions Hurt Investors PURE DEBT SOLUTIONS: Faces Boehm Suit over Unauthorized Calls REC BOAT HOLDINGS: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces CIS Communications Suit in Missouri RICO'S CHICKEN: Buitrago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ROYAL SEAS: Made Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Bell Suit Says SAM'S WEST: Sued by Lockwood Over False Ad for Gift Cards SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Parmelee Suit SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Remains Stayed SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Suit in Puerto Rico SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Suit over Mexican Government Bonds Pending SARIANA LLC: Violates ADA, Dennis Suit Asserts SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Does Not Pay Min. & OT Wages, Cano Suit Says SEVEN SPORTS: Hopkins Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA SITESOL: Palmerin Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA SPIGEN INC: Dennis Suit Asserts ADA Violation SPLIT ROCK: Accused by Indiviglio Class Suit of Violating FACTA SPROUT FARMERS: May 31 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set STEADFAST INCOME: Records $305,000 as Reimbursement at Dec. 31 STEWART BUILDERS: Sheffield Seeks OT Wages for Pump Operators SUNNY DELIGHT: Wins SunnyD Mislabeling Lawsuit SUNTRUST BANK: Class Action Over Exorbitant Overdraft Fees Okayed SURE CHECK: Kind Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri SURGERY PARTNERS: Derivative Claims Remain in Klein v. HIG Capital SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss Amended NJ Complaint Underway TAPESTRY INC: Amaro Seeks Redress for Unauthorized Calls TGHI INC: Faces Dennis Suit Alleging ADA Breach THULE INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Dennis Suit Says TOP TIER SAFETY: Edwards Suit Asserts FLSA Violations TREASURE BAY: Shortchanges Casino Dealers' Wages, Overtime Pay TRINITY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parra Suit Alleges TRIUMPH HOSPITALITY: Faces Lopez ADA Class Action in New York U.S. SOCCER: Moves to Transfer Unequal Pay Case to Illinois U.S. SOOCER: Team Coach Supports Women Players' Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stellenbosch Lecturer Comments on Class Action UNION PACIFIC: Flood Victims Reach Settlement UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Youth Immigration Status UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Motion to Expand ICE Class Action US BANK: Still Defends Class Suits Related to RMBS Trusts VISA USA: $4.1-Bil. Class Settlement Gets Court's Initial Okay W.L. GORE: Dennis Brings ADA Class Action in E.D. New York WAVERLY EASTERN: Faces Chen Suit Over Unpaid Wages WEBCOLLEX LLC: Reyes Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices WEIGHT WATCHERS: Jubelt Files Securities Class Action in NY WEIRTON, WV: Plant Demolition May Spur Class Action WILCO LIFE: Breaches Settlement in Insurance MDL, LSCC Claims WILLIAM SINGER: Sued by Olsen Over College Admissions Scandal WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND: Faces Albers' Suit over Data Breach WORLDPANTRY.COM: Dennis Files ADA Suit v. Chocolate Co. ZAGG INC: Dennis Asserts ADA Class Action in E.D. New York ZUMIEZ INC: Continues to Defend Herrera Class Action Suit [*] Securities Class Action Settlements Totaled $5-Bil. in 2018 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.8MM Award vs. Caterpillar Reversed on Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,684 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Faces Mount Vernon Mills Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arconic, Units Still Face PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Still Kills 5,000 People in UK Every Year ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Defends Talc-Related Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BEI Amicus Brief Accepted in Terwilliger's Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $308MM for PI Matters at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,708 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Asbestos Matters ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $89MM A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Cosmetics Recalled for Possible Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $56.0MM Accrued Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,089 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid DeLisle Judgment in December 2018 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $295MM Accrual at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had $15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,134 PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Posts $849.3MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Baby Shampoo Fails India Watchdog's Tests ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Unit Has 1,481 Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Jury Clears J&J in Talc Asbestos Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 460 Open Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rehearing of Deere Appeal Denied, Opinion Modified ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 745 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Science Lab Technician Dies of Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 29 ********* 1AND2 AUTOMOTIVE: Burks Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Burks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1AND2 AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, DAVID A. KOST, DAVID A. KOST, II, and DOW DOUGLAS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00716-L (N.D. Tex., March 22, 2019) is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") suit against the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the FLSA in that they failed to pay Plaintiff time and one-half his regular hourly rate for working weekly hours worked in excess of 40, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately January 2017 through September 2018. Defendant 1and2 Automotive does business in the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. D. Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com matthew@foresterhaynie.com - and - Jill J. Weinberg, Esq. WEINBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC 6425 Willow Creek Drive Plano, TX 75093 Phone: (972) 403-3330 Email: jillwlfirm@gmail.com 2 GOLD: Tenants' Class Action Over Hurricane Sandy Flooding Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Grant, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a tenant-driven class action lawsuit brought against two Lower Manhattan buildings ravaged by Hurricane Sandy must be dismissed because expert opinions meant to support negligence theories were conclusory and unsupported by data and industry standards, a state appeals court has ruled. An Appellate Division, First Department panel wrote that ownership and management company defendants in the lawsuit had established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by, among other things, showing that any property-related damages suffered by the tenants were "caused by an act of God" and that, in opposition, the tenants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. "Plaintiffs . . . failed to provide evidence sufficient to support these [negligence] theories since their experts' opinions were conclusory and unsupported by objective data or citations to the Building Code or industry standards," the panel wrote in its decision, citing in part Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5 NY3d 1. "Moreover," the panel wrote, "the opinion of one of plaintiffs' experts was based on observations long after the storm and subsequent to the installation of new floodgates" at the buildings. The lawsuit was lodged in November 2012, just weeks after Superstorm Sandy devastated the New York area, and it was brought on behalf of tenants at the adjacent 2 Gold Street and 201 Pearl Street buildings, both of which were evacuated and sustained major storm damage, court records say. Among the causes of action against the defendants, which included ownership companies 2 Gold LLC and 201 Pearl LLC and management company TF Cornerstone Inc., were multiple negligence claims. According to the complaint, tenants lost personal property and suffered property diminution of value, among other damages, and they were exposed to safety and health dangers from toxic fumes that emanated from a gasoline spill into the floodwaters. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Ellen Coin, in her 2017 summary judgment dismissal decision, which the First Department affirmed, wrote that the tenant-plaintiffs sought damages for loss and/or diminution of personal property value. She also noted that Sandy, said to be the largest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic Ocean, sent surging waters that "overtopped the Buildings' flood protections … depositing hundreds of thousands of gallons of water" into a flooded common basement, which in turn "caused the Buildings' 20,000 gallon oil tank to detach form the floor and release approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel oil into the floodwaters." The First Department panel of Justices David Friedman, John Sweeny, Rosalyn Richter, Jeffrey Oing and Peter Moulton wrote in their March 7 opinion that defendants 2 Gold, 201 Pearl and TF Cornerstone had established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. "They submitted evidence showing that plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused by an act of God," the justices wrote, and they showed that it was "not foreseeable" that "a storm of the magnitude of Superstorm Sandy would strike lower Manhattan, and that compliance with the Department of Buildings' mandated provisions for flood protection would be inadequate." Then the justices pointed out that the class plaintiffs had "assert[ed] that they presented sufficient evidence to raise triable issues[,] including whether the buildings were adequately flood proofed and prepared for the storm; whether there was a deviation from the design drawings during construction that caused water to accumulate against the floodgate; whether it was unreasonable for defendants not to have an emergency plan; whether defendants should have trained their superintendent in flood preparation and not have permitted him to leave the buildings the weekend before the storm; and whether it was unreasonable for defendants not to call the emergency services offered by their insurer." But the justices found that the tenant class "failed to provide evidence sufficient to support these theories since their experts' opinions were conclusory and unsupported by objective data or citations to the Building Code or industry standards," while noting that "the opinion of one of plaintiffs' experts was based on observations long after the storm and subsequent to the installation of new floodgates." Brittany Weiner, a partner at Imbesi Law in New York, said in an email on March 11 that "plaintiffs are evaluating all available options after reviewing the First Department's decision." She did not say more about whether or not plaintiffs may seek leave to appeal the First Department decision to the Court of Appeals. Barbara Goldberg -- goldbb@mcblaw.com -- a Martin Clearwater & Bell partner in New York and head of the firm's Appellate Department, represented the company defendants in the appeal. She also could not reached. [GN] 247.AI INC: Ford Appeals N.D. Calif. Decision to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Madison Copeland, Rudolph Dubrovszky, Michael Ford and Noe Gamboa filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Michael Ford, et al. v. [24]7.AI, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-02770-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 1, 2019, Judge Beth Labson Freeman (i) denied the parties' stipulated request to set a schedule for further briefing; and (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the present action, Ford, under the first-to-file rule. The putative class action was filed on May 10, 2018, asserting claims arising out of a 2017 data breach that affected customers of several large companies, including Best Buy, Delta Airlines, and Sears, all of which had hired [24]7 to provide sales support to their customers, including online chat services. The Plaintiffs claim that the data breach was caused by [24]7's inadequate security and that [27]7 delayed providing notice of the breach. The appellate case is captioned as Michael Ford, et al. v. [24]7.AI, Inc., Case No. 19-15462, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Madison Copeland, Rudolph Dubrovszky, Michael Ford and Noe Gamboa's opening brief is due on May 13, 2019; -- Appellee [24]7.AI, Inc.'s answering brief is due on June 13, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL FORD, RUDOLPH DUBROVSZKY, MADISON COPELAND and NOE GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Clayeo Arnold, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com jwatson@justice4you.com - and - Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0602 E-mail: jbourne@pswlaw.com mweiner@pswlaw.com - and - Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 201 North Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com Defendant-Appellee [24]7.AI, INC., is represented by: Teresa Carey Chow, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com - and - Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com 319 MEAT MARKET: Soriano et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SORIANO and BRAULIO RENDON TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. 319 MEAT MARKET CORP. (D/B/A KEY FOOD), SAM ABED, RANDI ABED, and JUAN DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01608 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are former employees of 319 Meat Market Corp. The Defendants own, operate, or control a supermarket, located at 319 Kings Highway, Brooklyn, NY 11223 under the name "Key Food". The Plaintiffs worked as helpers and bakers at the supermarket. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com A-S MEDICATION: Appeals Ruling in PHI Suit to 7th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------- Defendants A-S Medication Solutions, LLC and Walter Hoff filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. A-S Medication Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-05105, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this Telephone Consumer Protection Act case involves unsolicited advertisements sent by fax. Physicians Healthsource filed the case in state court in May 2012, and the Defendants removed it to federal court in June 2012. On Sept. 27, 2016, the judge to whom the case was previously assigned certified a Plaintiff class consisting of those who were successfully sent the advertisement between Feb. 10 and Feb. 28, 2010. In mid-October 2017, the case was transferred to Judge Kennelly. The appellate case is captioned as Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. A-S Medication Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1452, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellant's brief is due on or before April 22, 2019, for A-S Medication Solutions, LLC and Walter Hoff.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by: Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: wsolberg@andersonwanca.com Defendants-Appellants A-S MEDICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, and WALTER HOFF are represented by: Michael F. Coyle, Esq. FRASER STRYKER PC LLC 409 S. Seventeenth Street 500 Energy Plaza Omaha, NE 68102-2663 Telephone: (402) 341-6000 E-mail: mcoyle@fraserstryker.com AFSCME: Public Union Dues Fights Persist ---------------------------------------- David J. Pryzbylski, writing for The National Law Review, reports that last year, the US Supreme Court made waves when it ruled public employees generally cannot be forced to pay union dues. The immediate aftermath of the decision gave rise to a myriad of legal disputes, and those disputes persist. For example, the National Right to Work Foundation (NRTWF) recently announced that public employees in Michigan filed a class action against a union in that state for potentially unlawful attempts to force or coerce them into paying union dues. According to the press release: "Even after Michigan enacted its popular Right to Work Law protecting workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, union officials continued to harass and threaten two public school employees in attempts to illegally extract forced union fees from them. After years of union bosses' intimidation tactics, [the employees] filed a federal class action lawsuit, with free legal aid from Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, to enforce their First Amendment protections under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision. Their lawsuit demands that union officials stop the harassment, including the use of debt collectors, and refund dues illegally obtained from potentially thousands of other victims." Shortly after launching the lawsuit, it appears the union caved and agreed to cease its potential unlawful actions. It will be interesting to see if unions continue to push the envelope despite clear pronouncements that forced union dues in the public sector generally are no longer permitted. Stay tuned. [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Conti Sues Over Defective Vehicles -------------------------------------------------- Lesley Conti and Tom Conti on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02160 (C.D. Cal., March 22, 2019) is a proposed class action for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other persons and entities nationwide who purchased or leased a fifth generation, 2018 2019 Honda Odyssey vehicle or 2019 Honda Pilot manufactured by the Defendant. The Defendant designed, manufactured, tested, warranted, advertised, distributed, sold, and leased the Covered Vehicles, which contain a defective integrated in-vehicle communication, navigation, and entertainment system, commonly referred to as an "infotainment system", that causes many of the Vehicles' features to malfunction. As a result of the defect, the Vehicles' infotainment systems frequently freeze or crash (in which case no features connected to system are operational, including the navigation technology, the radio, and the rearview camera). These malfunctions pose a safety risk because when the system malfunctions, unexpected audio or video, or a blank or blue infotainment screen, can cause the driver to become distracted. The defect can also render safety-related systems (including backup camera functions) to fail. Honda either knew of the defect before marketing the Vehicles or failed to conduct adequate testing of the Vehicles system prior to its release, asserts the complaint. Regardless, soon after the release of the Vehicles, Honda must have known of the defect based on the numerous customer complaints it received, and yet Honda continued to market the Vehicles, the complaint relates. Plaintiffs Lesley and Tom Conti purchased a new 2018 Honda Odyssey EX-L from Great Lakes Honda in Akron, Ohio on or around June 12, 2017. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is a California corporation with its headquarters in Torrance, Los Angeles County, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com - and - John C. Weisensell, Esq. NIEKAMP, WEISENSELL, MUTERSBAUGH & MASTRANTONIO LLP 23 South Main Street, Third Floor Akron, OH 44308 Phone: (330) 434-1000 Fax: (330) 434-1001 Email: jack@nwm-law.com AMERICAN WEB: Curry Appeals Ruling in Solomon Suit to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Mark Curry and SOL Partners filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Royce Solomon, et al. v. Mark Curry, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00145-HCM-RJK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Newport News. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 15, 2019, Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that it continues to defend the class action lawsuit alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011. American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in the case. The other Defendants are AMERICAN WEB LOAN, INC.; AWL, INC.; MACFARLANE GROUP, INC.; MACFARLANE GROUP, LLC; MEDLEY OPPORTUNITY FUND II, LP; MEDLEY LLC; MEDLEY CAPITAL CORP.; OAKMONT FUNDING, INC.; DINERO INVESTMENTS, INC.; CHIEFTAIN FUNDING, INC.; DANT HOLDINGS, INC.; DHI COMPUTING SERVICE, INC.; SMITH HAYNES & WATSON, LLC; MIDDLEMARCH PARTNERS; JOHN DOES 1-100; MEDLEY MANAGEMENT, INC.; MEDLEY GROUP, LLC; BROOK TAUBE; SETH TAUBE; MIDDLEMARCH SECURITIES, LLC; and RED STONE. The appellate case is captioned as Royce Solomon, et al. v. Mark Curry, et al., Case No. 19-1267, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ROYCE SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JODI BELLECI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL LITTLEJOHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and GIULIANNA LOMAGLIO are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - Patrick T. Egan, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 1 Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109-0000 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com - and - David Watson Thomas, Esq. MICHIEHAMLETT, PLLC P. O. Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0298 Telephone: (434) 951-7224 E-mail: dthomas@michiehamlett.com Defendants-Appellants MARK CURRY and SOL PARTNERS are represented by: Robert Madison Cary, Esq. Simon Andrew Latcovich, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-5901 Telephone: (202) 434-5175 E-mail: rcary@wc.com slatcovich@wc.com - and - Kathryn E. Hoover, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 - and - Rachel S. Rodman, Esq. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU 1700 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20552 Telephone: (202) 435-7964 ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- A national shareholder rights litigation firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against Arlo Technologies, Inc. ("Arlo" or "the Company") (NYSE: ) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant or traceable to Arlo's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Arlo's August 3, 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), are encouraged to the firm before March 25, 2019. We also encourage you to Brian Schall, Esq., or Sherin Mahdavian, Esq., of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at , or by email at . The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Arlo's new battery for the Company's Ultra camera systems suffered from flaws and quality issues. These problems resulted in a shipping delay in the Ultra cameras. The delays endangered Arlo's product from reaching the market for the holiday season, and allowed competitors to capitalize on the issue, gaining market share from the Company. At the same time, Arlo's customers experienced problems with the product including excessive battery drain. The battery issues were likely to negatively impact the fourth quarter 2018 financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's Registration Statement was false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Arlo, investors suffered damages. Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Email: brian@schallfirm.com. sherin@schallfirm.com [GN] ARRIGO ENTERPRISES: Reichbart Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Alan Reichbart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arrigo Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Arrigo Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram West Palm Beach, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80398-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2019) is an action against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. This case arises from Defendant's transmission of prerecorded messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others, promoting the Defendant's services and goods. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave #1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-533-4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. Biscayne Blvd. #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com - and - Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 14 NE First Ave. 10th Floor Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 786-351-8709 Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com AUTOMATED HEALTH: Hunter Sues over Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ EVELYN HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMATED HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02784 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., March 1, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the class members' sensitive biometric data. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the class with a written, publicly available policy identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. An employee who leaves the Defendant does so without any knowledge of when their biometric identifiers will be removed from the Defendant's databases. Automated Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1979. The company's line of business includes providing health and allied services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. Seth Matus, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com smatus@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com admin@fishlawfirm.com AXOS BANK: McSwain Suit Asserts California Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel McSwain, on behalf of himself, all similarly others situated, and the general public; Plaintiff, v. AXOS Bank, fka BANK OF INTERNET USA; and DOES INCLUSIVE, 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 37-2019-00015782-CU-BC-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., March 25, 2019) is a class action based on the Defendant's blatant and willful violation of California laws requiring mortgage lenders making loans secured by property located in California to pay the borrower a minimum of 2% simple interest for money received in a borrower's escrow account for the payment of property tax and insurance. AXOS requires borrowers such as Plaintiff to maintain an impound escrow account in connection with their mortgages. Borrowers are forced to pay money into the escrow account in advance, and AXOS holds onto the money until it pays the property tax and insurance for the mortgaged property. The money in the escrow account, however, is the borrower's money and which mortgage lenders have use of for investment. Accordingly, California law requires mortgage lenders, including AXOS, to pay at least 2% interest on the monies to the borrowers. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that California's statutory requirement to pay interest is not preempted by federal banking laws and regulations. The complaint asserts that AXOS systematically and uniformly has adopted a policy to violate California law. When Mr. McSwain reached out to AXOS demanding his interest, AXOS incorrectly asserted that is not required to pay interest. Meanwhile, in quarterly earnings call, AXOS Financial, Inc. touted an increase in non-interest bearing accounts. AXOS is, therefore, willfully not complying with California law, then using the proceeds in order to enrich itself and the investors of Axos Financial, Inc. This class action is brought in order to force AXOS to pay its borrowers the interest they are entitled to by law on the money that is theirs, says the complaint. Plaintiff McSwain was the trustor of a mortgage of which Defendant AXOS was the beneficiary. Defendant AXOS Bank, is a national bank with its Principle place of business located at 4350 La Joila Village Drive, Suite 140, San Diego, CA 92122.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Lilach Halperin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 - and - Michael G. Olinik, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL G. OLINIK 3443 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 101 San Diego, CA 92108 AZCONA INC: Underpays General Laborers, Reyes et al. Allege ----------------------------------------------------------- ISMAR REYES; and FIDEL RAXCACO IZAGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZCONA INC.; and MANUEL AZCONA, Defendants, Case No. CV19-1188 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as general laborers. Azcona Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 114415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 BARCLAYS BANK: Still Faces Antitrust Suits over Interchange Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays Bank Delaware ("BBD") disclosed in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from February 1, 2019 to February 28, 2019, that it remains a defendant in a number of putative class action cases commenced in 2005 in various federal district courts by merchants alleging that Visa U.S.A., Inc., MasterCard International and their member banks conspired to fix interchange fees and unlawfully bundle several separate and distinct services, such as payment protection and transaction processing costs, in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws. The merchants also alleged that the defendants impose other restraints on merchants in connection with accepting payment cards and that such alleged restraints violate the antitrust laws. Visa, MasterCard and several other payment card issuing banks are also defendants in the proceedings, which have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the Eastern District of New York, MDL No. 1720. The merchants' complaints sought an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. By an order dated January 9, 2008, the court dismissed class damage claims prior to January 1, 2004; accordingly, the period over which any damages may be awarded is January 1, 2004 to the date of the award. On July 13, 2012, the parties filed a proposed settlement agreement with the court under which the defendants agreed to pay the class plaintiffs US$6.05 billion, to make network rule changes and to give other relief. The settlement agreement included a provision pursuant to which Visa and MasterCard would reduce U.S. interchange rates 10 bps during an eight-month period from July 29, 2013 through March 29, 2014. On the same day, defendants announced that they reached an agreement in principle to settle with a group of individual plaintiffs that were not members of the class. The class settlement was approved by District Judge John Gleeson on December 13, 2013, who then entered an agreed form of final judgment on January 14, 2014. The National Retail Federation and a number of merchants appealed that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit reversed Judge Gleeson's ruling approving the settlement and remanded the action back to the Eastern District of New York. Following remand of the case, the District Court reappointed counsel to represent members of the putative class seeking primarily (but not exclusively) damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and appointed new counsel to represent class members seeking primarily equitable relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Counsel for the Rule 23(b)(3) putative class members moved for leave to file an amended complaint adding factual allegations and legal theories to conform to developments in the law, as well as damage claims for additional years of alleged damages. Counsel for the Rule 23(b)(2) putative class members filed a separate complaint seeking broad equitable relief against allegedly anticompetitive conduct as well as Visa and MasterCard network rules. On September 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein granted the Rule 23(b)(3) plaintiffs' motion to amend in part and denied it in part, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to add their additional legal and factual theories, but holding that those theories would only apply to the preceding four years and would not relate back to the date of filing of the initial complaints in 2005. On October 30, 2017, the Rule 23(b)(3) plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The Rule 23(b)(3) plaintiffs appealed Magistrate Judge Orenstein's ruling to District Judge Margo Brodie. On August 30, 2018, District Judge Brodie set aside Magistrate Judge Orenstein's ruling, holding that plaintiffs' additional legal and factual theories related back to the original filing dates for the Rule 23(b)(3) complaints and, for similar reasons, that comparable theories advanced by merchants that elected not to participate in the 2012 settlement and are suing the same defendants separately. On January 16, 2019, BBD and the other bank defendants moved to dismiss the Rule 23(b)(2) class plaintiffs' claims. The briefing on the motion is currently scheduled to be completed in April 2019. A number of merchants, including several large retailers, elected against participation in the 2012 class settlement, "opting out" of that settlement and pursuing separate actions on the same or similar claims as those alleged by the putative class plaintiffs. Some of these merchants commenced new actions against Visa, MasterCard and certain member banks, not including BBD. Although the class settlement fund was reduced to account for opt-outs, resulting in a refund to BBD of a portion of its share of the class settlement fund, total settlement payments by BBD to opt-out plaintiffs may be higher than the amount of that refund. If so, BBD will be liable for its share of the excess over the refund under the terms of a judgment sharing agreement with Visa, MasterCard and the other payment card issuing bank defendants. As of the date hereof, Visa and MasterCard have settled a number of these opt-out actions and BBD has contributed to the settlement of those actions in accordance with the judgment sharing agreement. The amount of those settlements has exceeded what each of those plaintiffs would have been paid as a result of the class settlement. On February 17, 2017, BBD was named as a defendant in a case filed in Harris County Texas District Court. Plaintiffs allege that Visa, MasterCard, and the named defendant member banks agreed, with respect to Visa and MasterCard branded payment cards, to fix interchange fees, unlawfully bundle separate and distinct services, and otherwise engage in monopolistic and anticompetitive behavior in violation of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On April 5, 2017, certain defendants, including BBD, filed special appearances in the Texas District Court on the grounds that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over such defendants. On the same day, defendants jointly removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court and filed an amended complaint. On August 3, 2017, the action was transferred to the Eastern District of New York to be included in the pending multi-district litigation, MDL No. 1720. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand on September 18, 2018. On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding claims for violation of Sections I and II of the Sherman Antitrust Act against all defendants. BBD answered the second amended complaint on December 21, 2018. The District Court has yet to establish a calendar for further fact discovery, expert discovery, and substantive motions. On September 17, 2018, all defendants entered into a settlement agreement with the Rule 23(b)(3) class plaintiffs to resolve their claims. On January 24, 2019, Judge Brodie preliminarily approved the settlement of the Rule (b)(3) plaintiffs' claims. A final approval hearing has not been scheduled. Because of the inherent uncertainties involved in the Rule 23(b)(2) class action, the "opt-out" plaintiffs' actions and the Texas action, it is too early to reliably estimate the ultimate liability BBD may incur or whether the results could be material to the operation or cash flows of BBD. Barclays Bank Delaware, through its subsidiary Barclay card US, provides customized and co-branded credit card programs for travel, entertainment, retail, affinity, and financial institutions in the United States. BARK SHOP INC: Hernandez Hits Illegal SMS Ad Blasts --------------------------------------------------- Alexa Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bark Shop, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-20621 (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2019), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Bark Shop offers its members dog toys and treats. To promote its services, it engages in sending unsolicited text messaging en masse. Hernandez claims to have received such messages on his cellphone. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BEST BUY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Franke, writing for Reuters, reports that a once-promising securities class action against Best Buy came to a whimpering end on March 8, when U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank of St. Paul, Minnesota, granted summary judgment to the electronics chain, which had been accused of misrepresenting its projected earnings in a conference call with analysts way back in 2010. Judge Frank's ruling is obviously great news for Best Buy and its lawyers at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, who changed the course of the case when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- in the first appellate interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund -- decertified a Best Buy shareholder class in 2016. There's a lesson for other securities class action defendants from Best Buy's tenacity: It's expensive to litigate shareholder class actions to the circuit courts and back but sometimes the cost-benefit analysis cuts against settling when you first lose a class certification decision. The more important message from the Best Buy case, though, may be the relatively limited impact of the 8th Circuit's analysis of Halliburton. As you know, the Supreme Court held in Halliburton that although shareholders are entitled to a presumption that investors relied on corporate misstatements, defendants can rebut that presumption. In practice, the Supreme Court's ruling meant that securities class action defendants could attempt to block class certification by showing that alleged misrepresentations didn't impact the price of shares. The justices left considerable ambiguity about the burden and standard of proof to show a lack of price impact. The 8th Circuit's ruling in Best Buy, which said defendants need only to show some evidence in order to shift the burden to shareholders to prove price impact, buoyed defense hopes that Halliburton would turn out to be a powerful weapon. But the ruling hasn't gotten much traction. Based on Westlaw's tally of decisions citing the 8th Circuit's Best Buy decision, only a couple of trial courts have adopted the appellate court's reasoning on how defendants can rebut the presumption. Other trial courts have disagreed with the 8th Circuit's view of which side bears the burden of proof. Most significantly, in a pair of 2017 rulings in class actions against Petrobras and Barclays, the 2nd Circuit adopted a much tougher rebuttal standard, shunting aside the 8th Circuit's Best Buy analysis as dicta. The 8th Circuit's ruling, in other words, meant everything for Best Buy but not much for anyone else. That said, Judge Frank's handling of the Best Buy case after remand from the 8th Circuit is worth recounting because future securities defendants will surely try to replicate arguments that worked so well for Simpson Thacher and its client. Based on the docket, shareholders' lawyers from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd did not consider the 8th Circuit's class decertification decision to be a death blow for their case. In 2017, citing Judge Frank's previous class certification decision, they asked for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. Their key argument was that although the 8th Circuit had held that Best Buy's share price did not rise in response to that 2010 conference call with analysts, the appeals court did not address shareholders' "price maintenance" theory. Robbins Geller said it had engaged an expert witness who would testify that the alleged conference call misrepresentations kept Best Buy shares trading at an artificially inflated price. Judge Frank, however, read the 8th Circuit decision as the final word on price impact. In June 2017, he refused (2017 WL 2728399) even to allow Robbins Geller to file its renewed motion for class certification. Shareholders' own original expert witness, Judge Frank said, opined that the conference call statement didn't impact Best Buy share prices, as the 8th Circuit noted in its decertification decision. So price maintenance arguments by a new expert, the judge said, are foreclosed by the conclusions of shareholders' previous expert. "The 8th Circuit was clear that plaintiffs had failed to show price impact," Frank wrote. "The court is bound by that determination." The case still wasn't over, though: Robbins Geller moved to amend the shareholders' complaint, arguing for the revival of previously dismissed claims that Best Buy issued a misleading press release two hours before the allegedly misleading conference call. The company's share price did rise significantly between the press release and the analyst call, so if shareholders were permitted to bring claims based on the public announcement, they'd have a better shot at establishing price impact and winning class certification. But Judge Frank adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation against allowing shareholders to file an amended complaint, paving the way for Best Buy's motion for summary judgment on claims by the individual named plaintiff. Simpson Thacher argued that the lead shareholder testified he did not rely on, or even listen to, the conference call in which corporate officials allegedly misrepresented the company's prospects. Robbins Geller countered that Judge Frank had effectively prevented shareholders from litigating as a class, but did not contest that the lead investor didn't rely on the alleged misrepresentations. Judge Frank said in the March 8 ruling that without reliance, the case is over. It's hard to imagine another case with precisely parallel facts but not so hard to foresee defendants arguing, especially in trial courts in the 8th Circuit, that under Best Buy, they need only provide some evidence casting doubt on price impact to block class certification irreversibly. Shareholders' lawyer Shawn Williams of Robbins Geller said investors are weighing their options after the March 8 decision. [GN] BIG FISH: Slapped With Class Action Lawsuit Again ------------------------------------------------- Francesco Marconi, writing for Best Online Casino, reports that Sites News Online social games providers Big Fish Games has once again been slapped with a class action lawsuit that is questioning the legality of its social casino gaming products in the state of Washington. The lawsuit which was filed at the US District Court of the Western District of Washington at Seattle and is being led by Plaintiff Manasa Thimmegowda named the Big Fish Games and Aristocrat Leisure, its owner, as the defendants. According to the plaintiff, Big Fish Games and Aristocrat Leisure have violated Washington State gambling laws by operating Big Fish Casino as well as a number of other similar social casino games. As of this writing, online gambling is still illegal in the state. The plaintiff reportedly began playing at Big Fish Casino using her smartphone back in November 2017 and, as outlined in the lawsuit, she spent over $3,000 buying virtual chips within a single month just so that she could continue playing. The social gaming providers games can only be played with the casino's so-called virtual chips. While first-time players are usually provided with a bundle of free chips, they can use to play the games, they have to buy additional virtual chips once in order to keep playing after the freely-awarded chips run out. Previous Troubles Big Fish Casino has had legal troubles in the state since back in 2015 when a player from the state sued it and Churchill Downs, its then owner, for encouraging the purchase of virtual chips for real money in order to allow them to play the Big Fish casino games. These troubles extended all the way to 2018 when the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit finally issued a ruling which was not in the operator's favor. According to the court, Big Fish Casino's virtual chips were "a thing of value" and under the state's gaming law, the purchase of such chips, online or otherwise, constituted illegal gambling. The new lawsuit that the social games provider has been hit with gives a deeper insight into the proliferation of smartphone gambling services as well as the rapid growth of "free-to-play" games. In Big Fish Casino's case, the term "free-to-play" games is a misnomer since while the gaming apps are free to download from mobile app stores, the company has managed to "reap huge profits by selling thousands of 'in-app' items". This usually starts with relatively small amounts of money but it can quickly escalate to hundreds or even up to thousands of dollars. Obviously, if this is the case, both companies are in quite a hot mess.[GN] BOXER PROPERTY: Kelsall Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Kelsall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boxer Property Management Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01062 (S.D. Tex., March 21, 2019) is a collective action seeking to recover overtime compensation, other wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Plaintiff and all others similarly situated regularly worked over 40 hours in a week while employed by Defendant but were not paid time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a work week, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff and other similarly situated onsite leasing agents worked at a Boxer Property office located on one of Boxer Property's privately held and to-be-leased commercial properties. Boxer Property Management Corporation is a Houston-based corporation that is qualified to conduct business in the State of Texas and in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rhonda H. Wills, Esq. Patrick J. Raspino, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713) 528-4455 Facsimile: (713) 528-2047 BRITISH AMERICAN: 2 Class Actions vs. Souza Cruz Pending in Brazil ------------------------------------------------------------------ British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that there are currently two class actions being brought in Brazil against subsidiary Souza Cruz. In August 2007, the Sao Paulo Public Prosecutor's Office filed a medical reimbursement claim against Souza Cruz S.A. ("Souza Cruz"). A similar claim was lodged against Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda. On 4 October 2011, the Court dismissed the action against Souza Cruz, with a judgment on the merits. The plaintiffs' appeal to the Court of Appeal failed by unanimous vote (3 to 0). The Public Prosecutor's Office filed a Special Appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, which was denied on November 12, 2018 by a decision that is subject to further appeal. In 1995, the Associacao de Defesa da Saude do Fumante ("ADESF") class action was filed against Souza Cruz and Philip Morris in the Sao Paulo Lower Civil Court alleging that the defendants are liable to a class of smokers and former smokers for failing to warn of cigarette addiction. The case was stayed in 2004 pending the defendants' appeal from a decision issued by the Lower Civil Court that held that the defendants had not met their burden of proving that cigarette smoking was not addictive or harmful to health. On November 12, 2008, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's unfavorable decision of 2004, returning the case to the lower court for production of evidence and a new judgment. Following production of evidence, on 16 May 2011, the lower court granted Souza Cruz's motion to dismiss the action in its entirety on the merits. The plaintiffs' appeal to the Sao Paolo Court of Appeals was unsuccessful. The plaintiffs then filed a Special Appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, which was rejected under procedural grounds on 20 February 2017. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the rejection in the Superior Court of Justice on 15 March 2017. British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus, tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and e-cigarettes. The Company offers its products under the Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A, Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and Shuang Xi brands. The Company sells its products to retail outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BRITISH AMERICAN: Young's ETS Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------ The putative Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) class action styled Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. remains pending, according to British American Tobacco p.l.c.'s Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. is a case filed in November 1997 in the Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana against various US cigarette manufacturers, including subsidiaries R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJRTC) and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), and parent companies of such manufacturers. This putative Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) class action was brought on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to second-hand smoke from cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure, and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The Company said, "In March 2016, the court entered an order staying the case, including all discovery, pending the completion of an ongoing smoking cessation programme ordered by the court in a now concluded Louisiana state court certified class action, Scott v. American Tobacco Co." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus, tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and e-cigarettes. The Company offers its products under the Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A, Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and Shuang Xi brands. The Company sells its products to retail outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BROADCOM INC: High Court to Hear Oral Argument This Month --------------------------------------------------------- Oral arguments in a Supreme Court appeal related to the class action complaint of Gary Varjabedian, et al., against Broadcom Inc., are scheduled for April 15, 2019, according to Broadcom's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended February 3, 2019. The case is currently in the United States Supreme Court. On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. Central District Court, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names as defendants Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless and Emerald Merger Sub, and purported to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the board of directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 28, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court issued an order appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the U.S. Central District Court granted with prejudice on January 13, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit Court, on January 15, 2016. The appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief, on August 17 and August 22, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed their answering briefs, and on October 5, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief. The Ninth Circuit Court heard oral arguments on October 5, 2017. On April 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the U.S. Central District Court and remanding Plaintiff-Appellant's claims under Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act to the U.S. Central District Court for reconsideration. On May 4, 2018, the Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the Ninth Circuit Court. On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff-Appellant filed an Opposition to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On September 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court issued an order denying the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On October 11, 2018, Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On January 4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. On February 19, 2019, the Defendants-Appellees (as Petitioners in the United States Supreme Court) filed their opening brief. The Plaintiff-Appellant's brief was to be filed by March 21, 2019 and oral arguments are scheduled for April 15, 2019. The Company said, "We believe these claims are all without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions." Broadcom Inc. designs, develops, and supplies a range of semiconductor devices with a focus on complex digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor based devices and analog III-V based products worldwide. The company operates through four segments: Wired Infrastructure, Wireless Communications, Enterprise Storage, and Industrial & Other. Broadcom Inc. is based in San Jose, California. BSB BANCORP: Parshall Drops Suit over People's United Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- BSB Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Paul Parshall's derivative and putative class action complaint related to the proposed merger of the Company with and into People's United Financial, Inc. has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. Specifically, on March 6, 2019, Paul Parshall filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which was entered on the docket on March 11, 2019. On January 31, 2019, Paul Parshall, a purported individual stockholder of the Company, filed, on behalf of himself and all of the Company's stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates (the "Purported Class"), a derivative and putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Paul Parshall v. Robert J. Morrissey et al., naming each Company director, People's United and the Company as defendants. The complaint alleged that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Purported Class in connection with the Proposed Merger. The complaint also alleged that the January 23, 2019 proxy statement/prospectus ("Proxy Statement/Prospectus") included in People's United's Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission omitted certain information regarding the Proposed Merger. The Proxy Statement/Prospectus was the proxy statement for the Company's special meeting of stockholders to approve the Proposed Merger, and People's United's prospectus with respect to the shares of People's United's common stock to be issued to Company stockholders in the Proposed Merger. The relief sought by the complaint included preliminary and permanent injunction from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Merger, damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and rescission and rescissory damages if the proposed merger is completed. BSB Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for Belmont Savings Bank that provides commercial and retail banking services to small businesses, municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and other customers in the United States. The Company was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Belmont, Massachusetts. BUCCINI/POLLIN: Settles Homeowners' Construction Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Karl Baker, writing for Delaware News Journal, reports that a yearslong legal fight over who is at fault for rotting structural beams within Wilmington's taxpayer-supported Christina Landing townhomes came to a close just before it was set to go to trial on March 11. In 2015, homeowners Jason and Amanda Jones filed the suit against two home warranty companies and the Buccini/Pollin Group, the politically influential builder of the prominent development. Constructed in 2004 and 2005, the homes were designed to spark a back-to-the-city movement in Wilmington by bringing well-heeled professionals to the economically struggling southern banks of the Christina River. Yet, much of the hope dissolved years later when the residents learned that the beams holding up their enclosed terraces were rotting away. A resulting lawsuit claimed breach of contract, negligent construction, negligent repair, breach of warranty, bad faith and consumer fraud. Last year, a Delaware judge certified the case as a class action over BPG's objections. On March 7, lawyers announced that the claims had been settled. Rot has appeared in beams holding up second and third floor enclosed terraces at the Christina Landing townhomes in WIlmington. Terms of the settlement went undisclosed and neither BPG nor the attorney for the homeowners, Kevin Guerke, would comment for this story. Last year, Guerke had called the suit a "multimillion-dollar class action." Now, residents who live among the rows of the stately, 3-story townhomes must decide whether to accept the terms. When contacted by The News Journal on March 11, Helene Lotierzo, wasn't aware that the years of litigation could be coming to an end. She expects that her neighbors will vote to approve the settlement as long as "it's fair." For her, that would mean recouping most of the $35,000 spent, to date, on legal fees and on replacing rotting beams that hold up second and third-floor enclosed terraces. "If (the amount) is a slap in the face, then we won't accept it," she said. On March 8, counter-claims that BPG had brought against its construction subcontractors also were settled. Michael Silverman, an attorney for Sun Builders Inc., said BPG's allegations lacked any "credible evidence" to show that his client had done "anything to play any part in the damage." While Silverman settled the claims, he said it was for a "nuisance" amount -- small enough to demonstrate that his client was not liable, he said. "It was an amount low enough that it made no sense to go to trial," Silverman said. 'Widespread leaks' Until their support beams were found to be rotting away, the enclosed terraces at the prominent townhomes gave residents an unobstructed view of Wilmington's downtown and historic waterway. Their construction, just across the river from the Wilmington train station, had been a "public-private project of great importance to the economic vitality of Wilmington and the state," elected officials said in 2005. As such, the state and the city directed about $25 million to accommodate the construction of the larger Christina Landing development, which included the townhomes and their adjacent high-rise residential buildings. Less than a decade later, many of the residents were fuming when they learned that a vapor barrier, ice and water guard and metal flashing installed around the skeleton of the structures had failed. Last year, Guerke said new "repair costs will be substantial." "A contractor has to deconstruct the wall cavity to remove both structural beams, which hold up the terraces, replace them and then rebuild the wall without taking the entire front of the house apart," he said. "It's a tricky and complex process." While BPG may foot the bill for those repairs, now that it has settled the case, it likely will pursue reimbursement of those costs from the two home warranty companies with which it had contracted when it sold the homes. Buccini/Pollin spokesman Michael Hare last year said the larger dispute "is over whether the warranty company is liable for the damage." A case in Delaware's federal court, postponed until the completion of the class action between BPG and Home Buyers Warranty Corp. and National Home Insurance Company now looms. In previous court filings, the warranty companies claimed the insurance plans didn't cover the defects that caused the rot in the townhomes. [GN] BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Ferrell et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Kevin Ferrell, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Cheryl Baker, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; the Plaintiffs, vs. Buckingham Property Management, a California corporation; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. BC554213 (Filed August 8, 2014), was transferred from Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 11, 2019. The United States District Court Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00332-LJO-SAB to the proceeding. Plaintiff Kevin Ferrell filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court naming Buckingham Property Management as Defendant and alleging ten causes of action for wage and hour violations, which was recently subsequently amended to include a claim under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Buckingham Property Management, founded in 1982, specializes in professional management of residential real estate. It currently manages over 7,500 units in a wide range of conventional and compliance apartment communities. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: John T. Egley, Esq. Shirin Forootan, Esq. CALL & JENSEN Professional Corporation 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717-3000 Fax: (949) 717-3100 E-mail: jegley@calljensen.com sforootan@calljensen.com CALAVERA, CA: Class Action Over Marijuana Cultivation to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Schroyer, writing for Marijuana Business Daily, reports that a class action lawsuit against a rural California county that prohibited marijuana grows after collecting taxes and fees from hundreds of cultivators is poised to proceed after a judge's ruling that overruled objections from the county. The lawsuit -- filed last August on behalf of several hundred MJ farmers in Calaveras County -- seeks the return of roughly $16 million in taxes and fees paid to the county. The county has already agreed to refund nearly $1 million in fees, but that wasn't enough to settle the dispute. Now the ball is in the county's court, said attorney Henry Wykowski, one of the lawyers representing the Calaveras growers. "We expect that we'll hear from the county, and if we can settle it, we will, and if not, then we've done these before and we'll move forward," Wykowski said, pointing to the $1 million fee refund as a sign that county officials "know that they're in trouble" on this issue. He estimated that even if the matter goes to trial, it wouldn't happen for at least another year. The Calaveras County counsel could not be immediately reached for comment. [GN] CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Faces Class Action Over Union Fees ------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that five public school teachers on March 11 filed a proposed class action against the California Teachers Association and their local labor union affiliates, alleging that school districts continue charging them union dues even though they are no longer members. The educators, including one from Hayward and one from Fremont, said in a complaint filed in San Francisco federal district court that they weren't told they could opt out of joining the local teachers unions. When the teachers later resigned their memberships, they say union leaders told them they had to continue paying dues until a specified withdrawal period arrived. The teachers, represented by the Dhillon Law Group of San Francisco and the Washington-based Freedom Foundation, argue that the ongoing dues violate Janus v. AFSCME. The 2018 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court held that forcing non-union members to pay fair-share fees -- covering the costs of collective bargaining -- violates public-sector workers' First Amendment rights. "The fact that the union is continuing to deduct dues but has accepted [the employees'] resignation shows that they are really only concerned about the money," Mariah Gondeiro-Watt, Freedom Foundation's California counsel, said at a press conference on March 11 in San Francisco. "We want to establish going forward that the unions must obtain the affirmative consent of the employees before they deduct union dues." The suit also names five school district superintendents and Attorney General Xavier Becerra for enforcing state statutes the plaintiffs say allow the continued, unwanted collection of union dues. "This is just another lawsuit from the Freedom Foundation to continue the attack on public education and public employees," California Teachers Association spokeswoman Claudia Briggs said in an email. The Freedom Foundation, a critic of public employee unions and their political power, has been a leader in efforts to encourage workers to opt out of union membership in the wake of Janus. Max Nelson, the nonprofit's director of labor policy, told Marketplace last fall that his organization has a $3 million to $4 million budget for a campaign targeting public workers. Their pitch has included mailers, door-to-door visits with employees, billboards and videos. The suit filed on March 11 in San Francisco is similar to a class action filed by Freedom Foundation attorneys last year in the U.S. District Court for western Washington, which alleges the state and public-sector unions are conspiring to continue charging union fees to nonmember employees. Harmeet Dhillon, lead counsel for the California plaintiffs, said the proposed class action seeks a refund of any dues taken improperly from class members as well as an order that employees be told that they are not required to join a union and that if they do sign on with a bargaining unit their dues could be spent on political activities with which they disagree. The Supreme Court's decision last year in the Janus case overturned decades-old precedent that permitted public sector unions to collect fair-share fees. A similar suit, titled Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, ended in a deadlocked 4-4 ruling at the Supreme Court in 2016. The even divide, caused after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, left in place a Ninth Circuit decision that favored the union. [GN] CAMPING WORLD: Ronge and Strougo Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Camping World Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that on February 27, 2019, lead plaintiffs in the "Ronge" and "Strougo" suits filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the May and October 2017 secondary offerings of the Company's Class A common stock. The Company said, "On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us, certain of our officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Ronge Complaint"). On October 25, 2018, a different purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us, certain of our officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Strougo Complaint"). "The Ronge and Strougo Complaints were consolidated and lead plaintiffs appointed by the court. On February 27, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against us, certain of our officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the May and October 2017 secondary offerings of our Class A common stock. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading related to the business, operations, and management of the Company. Additionally, it alleges that certain of our officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P., and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. violated Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly acting as controlling persons of the Company. The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our Class A common stock between March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018, and seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission, and any equitable or injunctive relief the court deems just and proper." Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a portfolio of services, protection plans, products, and resources for recreational vehicle (RV) owners and camping enthusiasts. Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. CAMPING WORLD: Seeks to Dismiss IUOE Complaint in NY State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Camping World Holdings, Inc., along with other defendants, has moved to dismiss a putative class action complaint styled International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. On December 12, 2018, the complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to a secondary offering of such securities in October 2017 ("IUOE Complaint"). The IUOE Complaint names as defendants Camping World, and certain of our officers and directors, among others, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading. On February 28, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss this action. Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a portfolio of services, protection plans, products, and resources for recreational vehicle (RV) owners and camping enthusiasts. Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. CARBEL USA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Douglas Rodriguez, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Carbel USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 705142/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., Queens Cty., March 25, 2019) complains on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly situated current and former hourly employees who worked for the Defendant, under the Civil Practice Law and Rules that he and they are entitled to unpaid overtime wages from Defendant for working more than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate and 1.5 times the applicable minimum wage rate, and entitled to costs and attorney's fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act ("NYMWA"), and the N.Y. Lab. Law,("NYLL"). Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from February 2016 to February 5, 2019. Carbel USA LLC was a for-profit Limited Liability Company with offices located at 182-08 149th Avenue, Springfield Gardens, NY 11413.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427 Phone: 718-740-1000 Fax: 718-740-2000 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com CAREFIRST INC: Appeal Filed in Attias Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Chantal Attias, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Chantal Attias, et al. v. CareFirst, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00882-CRC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2019, Judge Christopher R. Cooper granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case. In May 2015, the District of Columbia-area health insurer CareFirst announced that it had suffered a data breach that compromised the personal information of millions of its policyholders. The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are among those whose data was accessed. They seek compensation for the breach through both tort- and contract-based claims under District of Columbia law, as well as statutory claims under several D.C., Maryland, and Virginia consumer-protection laws. The appellate case is captioned as Chantal Attias, et al. v. CareFirst, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-7020, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Chantal Attias, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Richard Bailey, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Latanya Bailey, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Lisa Huber, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Andreas Kotzur, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Curt Tringler, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Connie Tringler, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher T. Nace, Esq. PAULSON & NACE PLLC 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Third Floor Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-1999 E-mail: cnace@paulsonandnace.com Defendants-Appellees CareFirst, Inc., doing business as Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., doing business as Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield, doing business as CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc.; Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield, doing business as Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Shield; CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc., doing business as Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield, doing business as Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as CareFirst of Maryland, Inc.; and CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., doing business as Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield, doing business as BlueCross and BlueShield of Maryland Inc.,, doing business as CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc., are represented by: Matthew Gatewood, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 700 6th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001-3980 Telephone: (202) 383-0100 E-mail: matt.gatewood@sutherland.com - and - Robert D. Owen, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas Grace Building, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 389-5000 E-mail: robertowen@eversheds-sutherland.com CARTERSVILLE, GA: Cartersville 70' Attorneys File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- James Swift, writing for The Daily Tribune News, reports that attorneys representing seven individuals arrested in late 2017 as part of the infamous "Cartersville 70" incident have filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Cartersville and numerous members of both the Cartersville Police Department and Bartow County Sheriff's Office. The complaint was formally filed in the United States District Court's Northern District of Georgia in Rome on March 11. The suit accuses more than two dozen representatives of the Cartersville Police Department, Bartow County Sheriff's Office and Bartow-Cartersville Drug Task Force of several wrongdoings, including unconstitutional search and seizure, violation of right to privacy, false imprisonment and battery. Serving as counsel for the seven plaintiffs are three attorneys from the Southern Center for Human Rights and two lawyers from Marietta's The Merchant Law Firm, P.C. "We were contacted by some of the victims early on and we've been in communication with them over a period of time," Southern Center for Human Rights Senior Attorney Gerald Weber told The Daily Tribune News. "We did what is called a 'demand letter,' essentially, to the defendants trying to resolve the case before litigation. They declined to do that, and now we've filed a lawsuit." In total, the complaint lists more than 30 defendants, including CPD deputies Joshua Coker, Gary Turner, Luke Pulliam and Chase Randall. Cartersville Police Department Sgt. Cullen LaFrance is also listed in the suit, as is Bartow-Cartersville Drug Task Force Maj. Mark Mayton. The suit also mentions 20 unnamed CPD deputies and five unnamed BCSO deputies. In an incident that garnered international attention, more than 60 people were arrested for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana at a house party at 2 Cain Drive on Dec. 31, 2017. Of the 64 partygoers arrested that morning, the complaint states that 50 were African-American. "What we are looking for is justice for our clients," Weber said. "Their lives changed on that day and they will never be the same. We want a jury to look at what happened to them, to look at these people and who they were and to say 'We are sorry for what happened to you and you deserve some compensation for having your life turned into a nightmare.'" According to the filing in Rome on March 11, "plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief on behalf of a class of all visitors who were seized, arrested and charged with crimes on Dec. 31, 2017, and whose charges were dismissed on Jan. 12, 2018." Legal counsel for the plaintiffs argue the City of Cartersville is liable for damages due to its "policy of warrantless entry," adding that the "plaintiffs' seizure and subsequent mass arrest lacked probable cause and was excessive and unreasonable in its duration and scope." At the heart of the lawsuit, Weber said, are two CPD policies. "One is they have a policy that allows for the entering of homes without a search warrant based solely on the purported smell of marijuana," he said. The other is a policy allowing CPD personnel to seize all occupants of a home or dwelling without what Weber described as "any individual suspicion or probable cause." "These were policies of the City, according to the officers themselves," he said. "Both of these policies are violations of clear law that's been on the books from the Supreme Court for years and years and years." Furthermore, the suit accuses the defendants of acting "with malice and with actual intent to cause injury in the performance of their official functions" during the mass arrest. According to the complaint, some of those arrested were denied "proper treatment" for medical conditions at the Bartow County Jail — that includes an arrestee who alleged that she was not given anti-seizure medication until three days into her detention. "A pregnant woman was denied prenatal pills and received no care when she vomited repeatedly in a holding cell garbage can," the suit alleges. "A diabetic received a dosage of insulin that exacerbated his condition." The complaint also alleges that an arrestee was told to "just piss on yourself" by BCSO personnel while waiting in the detention center garage, while another arrestee claims that an officer grabbed her phone to prevent her from recording the mass arrest as it happened. "Those who complained about their treatment were either threatened with tasers or taken to small isolation cells with padded walls and concrete floors and no bed or place to sit," the complaint described conditions for arrestees at the local jail. "A hole in the floor served as the toilet. Visitors sent to isolation cells were denied blankets to stay warm. Some wrapped toilet paper around their arms, torsos and feet because they were so cold." At least one named plaintiff in the suit claims that a BCSO deputy placed him in an isolation cell for approximately seven hours after complaining about the temperature of the holding cell. He claims that he was threatened with "indefinite isolation" when he asked for toilet paper. There is a possibility, Weber said, that potential criminal charges could arise from the civil suit. He recounted a case several years ago, in which a district attorney brought charges against a sheriff and several deputies in the wake of a "mass search" of 700 students at a school. "It's possible that there could be criminal prosecutions, but we don't have the power to do that, it's the law enforcement agencies that make those determinations," he said. "What happens in the criminal court largely depends on how different law enforcement agencies look at and prioritize the issue." The suit also alleges the BCSO of "illegally" posting the mug shots of arrestees online, claiming the actions of five unnamed BCSO employees were a violation of Georgia's arrest booking photograph disclosure laws. Twenty unnamed CPD personnel are also cited in the complaint for their part in the mass arrest incident. "Those are ones that still have to be identified," Weber said. "We have requested that information from the lawyers for the defendants." According to the suit, the plaintiffs are seeking a trial jury, compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury and punitive damages according to federal and state law pertaining to the individual defendants. The suit is also seeking "a declaratory judgment stating that a law enforcement officer violates an individual's rights under the United States and Georgia Constitutions when he searches, detains and arrests that person without consent or individualized suspicion that the individual has violated the law," as well as similar declaratory judgments regarding the posting of booking photographs online and the warrantless entry of homes and/or detention of home occupants based on the suspected smell of marijuana. Weber acknowledged that a resolution is unlikely to happen anytime soon, and that the case could drag out in the courts for the foreseeable future. "Much depends on the trajectory of the case, the court and what motions are filed by both sides," he said. "I generally regard these cases as at least taking a few years to resolve, and sometimes that's an underestimate and sometimes that's an overestimate . . . this case is far more complex in terms of the number of plaintiffs and the number of defendants, so it could last quite a bit longer than that." BCSO representative Sgt. Jonathan Rogers and CPD representative Lt. Mike Bettikofer each told The Daily Tribune News that their respective departments do not normally comment on ongoing lawsuits. Cartersville City Manager Tamara Brock said the same -- "We can't comment on potential or pending litigation." Weber did not have a monetary estimate for how much the class action lawsuit would seek in damages against the defendants. "We generally kind of trust the jury on this," he said. "In this case, all of our clients had their lives really upended. I mean, people lost jobs, they got kicked off of sports teams, they had their military service deferred, and because the defendants posted the photographs up and failed to take them down in violation of State law, there was kind of this continuing damage to them . . . and it's going to haunt them the rest of their lives, even though the charges were dismissed." [GN] CASA PACIFICA: Faces Damron's Labor Suit ---------------------------------------- An employment-related class action has been filed against Casa Pacifica Centers for Children and Families. The case is captioned Cassandra Damron as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated vs. Casa Pacifica Centers for Children and Families, Case No. 56-2019-00526044-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super., Ventura County, March 11, 2019). Headquartered in Camarillo California, Casa Pacifica offers adolescent and family services designed to treat victims of abuse and neglect, substance abuse, homelessness, and other behavioral and mental health issues. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Lidman Law, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: 424-322-4772 Facsimile: 424-322-4775 E-mail: info@lidmanlaw.com CITYWIDE PARKING: Faces Kemi Wage and Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- OMAR KEMI, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. CITYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation; HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV08552 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2019), arises out of an alleged ongoing wrongful scheme by the Defendants to deny their employees the benefits due under California's wage and hour laws for work performed in California. Citywide Parking Management, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal office located in Irvine, California. Citywide is in the business of providing valet parking services throughout southern California, including Hawaiian Gardens Casino. Hawaiian Gardens Casino is a California corporation with a place of business located in Los Angeles County. HGC operates Hawaiian Gardens Casino, and provides valet parking services for patrons of its casino. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities, relationships and extent of participation in the alleged conduct of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Atoy H. Wilson, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net awilson@mahoney-law.net COLUMBUS, OH: Pennington Sues Over 1st Amendment Rights Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Connie Pennington, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals v. Communications Workers of America, Local 4502, and the City of Columbus, Case No. 2:19-cv-00937-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, March 13, 2019), alleges that the Defendants are violating the First Amendment by prohibiting employees from stopping the deduction and collection of union dues from their wages during the term of a collective bargaining agreement, except for its last 30 days, without proof these employees waived their First Amendment rights. The City of Columbus is a municipal corporation that can sue and be sued in its own name. The office of the Mayor of the City of Columbus is located at the City Hall, in Columbus, Ohio. CWA is a labor organization whose headquarters is located in Columbus, Ohio. CWA is the exclusive representative of a unit of employees employed by the City of Columbus.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald C. Brey, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 65 E. State Street, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 438215 Telephone: (614) 334-6105 E-mail: dbrey@taftlaw.com - and - William L. Messenger, Esq. Aaron B. Solem, Esq. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22160 Telephone: (703) 321-8510 E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org abs@nrtw.org CONAGRA BRANDS: April 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until April 23, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Conagra Brands, Inc. (NYSE: CAG), if they purchased the Company's shares between June 27, 2018 and December 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period") and/or traceable to its October 2018 secondary public offering. This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Conagra and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cag/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by April 23, 2019. About the Lawsuit Conagra and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On December 20, 2018, the Company disclosed disappointing financial results for 2Q 2019, including net sales for its recently-acquired Pinnacle segment that were "below expectations due to weak performance across a range of significant brands," which resulted in much negative scrutiny by analysts, questioning whether Conagra had performed proper due diligence in the transaction. On this news, the price of Conagra's shares plummeted. The case is West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra, 19-cv-01323. Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: 1-877-515-1850 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] CONTINENTAL HOSTS: Rendon Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- ISRAEL EFRAIN RENDON, PANTALEON LEON, and SANTOS MARLENE LOPEZ SIGUENZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CONTINENTAL HOSTS, LTD. (d/b/a GLEN ISLAND HARBOUR CLUB ), BRUCE R. LEWIN , JAMIE MEADOW, and ALBERT DUGA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02482 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled the club, located at 50 Glen Island Park, New Rochelle, NY 10805 under the name "Glen Island Harbour Club". The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks and sous chefs at the restaurant. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Johnson and Chen Class Suits Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended February 17, 2019, that the court has consolidated the class action suits Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. and Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Dec. 11, 2018). The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control over financial reporting. They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the actions. Costco Wholesale said, "The Company expects the consolidated action to be vigorously defended." Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COVENANT TRANSPORT: Underpays Drivers, Tabizon Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD TABIZON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVENANT TRANSPORT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07242 (Cal. Super, Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Tabizon was employed by the Defendants as driver. Covenant Transport, Inc. provides truckload for-hire and dedicated contract transportation. The company was founded in 1985 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Covenant Transport, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, APLC 515 S. Figueroa St. Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-1515 Facsimile: (213) 465-4885 - and - Larry W. Lee, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com - and - David Lee, Esq. DAVID LEE LAW 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 236-3536 Facsimile: (866) 658-4722 E-mail: David@DavidJLeeLaw.com COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Faces Tabizon Class Action in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suit initiated by Richard Tabizon has been removed from state court to the U.S. Federal District Court in the Central District of California. The company's Covenant Transport subsidiary is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles, California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California resident and former driver), who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action case wherein he alleges violation of multiple California wage and hour statutes from October 31, 2014 to present, including failure to pay drivers separately for rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay minimum wage (for on-duty not driving time), waiting time penalties, and failure to reimburse for business expenses. Tabizon is also seeking Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") penalties based on these claims from September 11, 2017 through the present. The case was removed from state court on December 6, 2018 to the U.S. Federal District Court in the Central District of California. Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and brokerage services primarily in the continental United States. Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee. CVS HEALTH: Labourers' Pension Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health Corporation. The case is styled as Labourers' Pension Fun of Central and Eastern Canada, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS Health Corporation, Larry J. Merlo, David M. Denton and Eva C. Boratto, Defendants, Case No. 651700/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Mar. 22, 2019). The case type is stated as "CD-E Other Commercial". CVS Health Corporation is an American retail pharmacy and health care company headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: GANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER 360 LEXINGTON AV, 14TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 922-9250 DAKKOTA INTEGRATED: Fox Sues over Use of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------- RAVEN FOX, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. DAKKOTA INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03620 (Ill. Cir., March 20, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary biometric data, pursuant to the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when Dakkota hires an employee, her or she is enrolled in its third-party employee database(s). Dakkota uses the employee database to monitor the time worked by Dakkota's hourly employees. While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Dakkota employees are required to have their hand geometry scanned by biometric timekeeping device. Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many businesses -- such as Defendant's -- and financial institutions have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- one's hand geometry is a set of unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Dakkota's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing hand geometry scans or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and Face book/Cambridge Analytica data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information. By the time BIPA passed through the Illinois legislature in mid-2008, most companies who had experimented with using individuals' biometric data stopped doing so. However, Defendant failed to take note of the shift in Illinois law governing the collection, use and dissemination of biometric data. As a result, Defendant continues to collect, store, use and disseminate individuals' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the lawsuit says. Dakkota is an automotive supplier that manages the assembly and sequencing of integrated automotive interiors for original equipment manufacturers. Dakkota has locations throughout the Midwest, including a location in Chicago.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 233 1550 Facsimile: 312 233 1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com DELTA AIR LINES: Denies Workers Overtime Pay, Fan Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard Fan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01520 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2019) arises from Delta's overtime violations. Delta systematically denies its employees the overtime compensation to which they are entitled under California law, asserts the complaint. In particular, Delta fails to take into account all required forms of compensation when calculating the "regular rate" upon which employees' overtime compensation is to be determined under California law, the complaint relates. Howard Fan was employed by Delta as a customer service agent at Los Angeles International Airport from September 2010 until August 2018. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Scott A. Brooks, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com - and - James M. Finberg, Esq. Eileen B. Goldsmith, Esq. Eric P. Brown, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 421-7151 Fax: (415) 362-8064 Email: jfinberg@altber.com egoldsmith@altber.com ebrown@altber.com DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM LLC: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in Davis Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants DoctorDirectory.com, LLC, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of the United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter titled DoctorDirectory.com, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Davis Neurology, P.A., Case No. 18-1190. Response is due on April 12, 2019. The Lower Court Decision was issued on July 23, 2018, in the lawsuit entitled Davis Neurology PA, on behalf of itself and all other entities and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DoctorDirectory.com LLC; Everyday Health Inc., Defendants-Appellees, John Does, 1-10, intending to refer to those persons, corporations or other legal Entities that acted as agents, consultants, Independent contractors or representatives, Case No. 17-1820, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Lower Court Rehearing Request was denied on December 11, 2018. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in the case styled DAVIS NEUROLOGY, P.A., on behalf of itself and all other entities and persons similarly situated v. DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM, LLC and EVERYDAY HEALTH, INC., Case No. 4:16-CV-00682 BSM (E.D. Ark.). Davis Neurology, PA, brought a putative class action in Arkansas state court, alleging that defendants DoctorDirectory.com, LLC and Everyday Health, Inc. (Doctor Directory), violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The alleged violation occurred when the Defendants sent Davis Neurology an unsolicited facsimile that contained an invitation to participate in a research study.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Doctordirectory.com, LLC, et al., are represented by: Maria Z. Vathis, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 602-5000 E-mail: maria.vathis@bclplaw.com DON DEO: Sierra Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages & Regular Pay --------------------------------------------------------- CESAR E. SIERRA and other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), vs. DON DEO FOOD SERVICES, LLC d/b/a DON DEO BREWING BAR & GRILL, JOSE E. VERARDI and OSCAR GUEVARA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21071 (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and regular hours, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after December 2017, without being properly compensated. The Defendants did not use any time keeping device, but Plaintiff was required to sign time-sheets. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40. Don Deo Food Services owns and operates grocery stores in Miami, Florida.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DRAPER AND KRAMER: Kanacevic Sues over Biometric Data Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAMIL KANACEVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAPER and KRAMER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02807 (Ill., Cir., Cook Cty., March 1, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's practice of collecting fingerprints from its workers is unlawful and a serious invasion of its worker's right to privacy concerning their biometric information. The Defendant has failed to provide the required disclosures to inform its workers that it was collecting their biometric identifiers and information, and failed to inform the workers of how long the Defendant intended to keep this highly sensitive information. Draper and Kramer, Incorporated provides property and financial services in the United States. The company was founded in 1893 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. Draper and Kramer, Incorporated operates as a subsidiary of DKH, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Castiglione, Esq. Kasif Khowaja, Esq. THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 356-3200 Facsimile: (312) 386-5800 E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com kasif@khowajalaw.com - and – James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com ELITE LIMOUSINE: Buttar Sues over Contract Breach ------------------------------------------------- Elite Limousine Plus, Inc., and First Corporate Sedans, Inc., have been named as defendants in a class action captioned as, SHAHID BUTTAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ELITE LIMOUSINE PLUS, INC., FIRST CORPORATE SEDANS, INC., GUY BEN ZION, AMIR BEN ZION, SHAFQUAT CHAUDHARY, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 651088/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 21, 2019). The action alleges (i) breach of contract and/or unjust enrichment, (ii) violations of New York General Business Law, including violations of the Franchise Disclosure Act, (iii) violations of the Freelance Isn't Free Act, and (iv) fraudulent conveyance under various sections of the New York Debtor & Creditor Law, arising out of Defendants' business relationship with Plaintiff(s). The case seeks damages in excess of $3,000,000.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: David Slarskey, Esq. Evan Fried, Esq. SLARSKEY LLC 800 Third Avenue, 18th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 658-0661 ESMARALDA FASHIONS: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Aguilar Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Miguel Giovanny Aguilar, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Esmaralda Fashions Inc. (d/b/a Esmaralda Fashions) and David Asherian, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02602 (S.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Aguilar and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. Further, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Aguilar appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, notes the complaint. Plaintiff Aguilar is a former employee of Defendants. Defendants own, operate, or control a clothing store, located at 141 West 36th street, New York, NY 10018 under the name "Esmaralda Fashions".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 EXPRESS FASHION: Chacon Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JORGE CHACON, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS FASHION OPERATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01047766-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court, Central District of California on March 22, 2019, and assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00564. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant had a consistent policy and/or practice of failing to pay Class Members and Subclass Members with the correct overtime rates, willfully failed and refused to timely pay wages to former Class Members and Subclass Members at the conclusion of their employment, and failed to compensate Class Members and Subclass Members with proper overtime and double overtime rates. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to incorporate performance based sales bonuses and commission that are non-discretionary into the overtime and double time regular rate calculations, says the complaint. The Defendants are represented by: Sarah E. Ross, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Phone: 310.772.7292 Fax: 310.553.5583 Email: sross@littler.com - and - Tiffany Nicole Cruz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2050 Main Street, Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949.705.3000 Fax: 949.724.1201 Email: tncruz@littler.com FEHE ENTERPRISES: Wallace Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------- A labor-related class action has been filed against Fehe Enterprises, Inc. The case is captioned STASHA WALLACE and BRITTANY STALLWORTH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. FEHE ENTERPRISES, INC. and HELEN EDOIMIOYA, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01139-LMM (N.D. G.A., March 11, 2019). Plaintiffs Stasha Wallace and Brittany Stallworth bring this collective action on behalf of all current or former Direct Support Professionals, and other similarly situated persons, employed by Defendants Fehe Enterprises Inc. and Helen Edoimioya. In violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as a regular and routine practice, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons (1) minimum wage for all hours worked; and (2) overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Defendants directed Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons to submit false timesheets, fictitiously stating that they only worked approximately 12 hours per day -- when they actually worked far more -- for which Defendants paid them a flat rate per day. Fehe Enterprises, Inc. is a for-profit Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia, at 5532 Old National Highway, Building G, Suite 275, College Park, Georgia 30349. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: 678-780-4880 Facsimile: 478-575-2590 E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com FRONTLINE ASSET: Rutledge Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action styled as Robert Rutledge and Carol Barclay on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-C-364-D was removed from the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on March 25, 2019, and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00217. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. FrontLine Asset Strategies LLC or FAS is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq. HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD P. O. Box 959 Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959 Phone: (304) 574-2727 Fax: (304) 574-3709 Email: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com The Defendant is represented by: Katlin L. Connelly Zarisky, Esq. GORDON & REES 707 Grant Street, Suite 3800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 577-7400 Fax: (412) 347-5461 Email: kzarisky@gordonrees.com GAP (ITM) INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK CHU; VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GAP (ITM) INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01518-CAS-SS (Cal. Super., March 4, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants' website at https://www.gap.com/ denies the Plaintiffs and Class Members, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access, and therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered and integrated with the Defendants' stores. Due to the Defendants' failure and refusal to remove access barriers on its website, the Plaintiffs and other visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal and full access to the Defendants' stores and the numerous accessories, footwear and apparel goods offered to the public through the Defendants' Website in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gap (ITM) Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Gap, Inc. The company offers apparel, accessories, and personal care products for men, women, and children under the Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic, Athleta, Intermix, and Hill City brands. The Gap, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com GLOBALSCAPE INC: Settlement in Giovagnoli Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- GlobalSCAPE, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court in the class action lawsuit initiated by Anthony Giovagnoli has entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement. On November 15, 2017, on August 9, 2017, a securities class action complaint, Anthony Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et. al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00753, was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On November 6, 2017, the Court appointed Irfan Rahman as lead plaintiff (the "Lead Plaintiff"), and he filed the First Amended Complaint on July 26, 2018 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint named, Matthew Goulet, James Albrecht, Thomas Brown, David Mann, Frank Morgan, and Thomas Hicks (collectively, the "individual Defendants") and the Company as defendants for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia, the Company's previously reported financial statements. The Amended Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Amended Complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. The parties reached a settlement and submitted a Stipulation of Settlement to the Court on September 13, 2018. Under this settlement, the Company's and Individual Defendants' insurance carrier has provided the Class with a cash payment of $1,400,000, which includes the cash amount of any attorney's fees or litigation expenses that the Court may award Lead Plaintiff's counsel and costs Lead Plaintiff may incur in administering and providing notice of the settlement. In exchange, Lead Plaintiff has agreed that the settlement will include a dismissal of the Class Action with prejudice and a release of all claims against the Company and the Individual Defendants by the Class. The Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement on December 18, 2018. On December 18, 2018, the Court also awarded Plaintiff's Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel 25% of the settlement fund ($350,000) in fees and $12,721 in reimbursement of expenses, which was paid from the settlement fund. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and distributes software, delivers managed and hosted solutions, and provides associated services for secure information exchange, and data transfer and sharing for enterprises and consumers worldwide. GlobalSCAPE, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. GREENSKY INC: IPO-Related Securities Class Actions Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- GreenSky, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Company and certain of its officers and directors are currently subject to putative securities class actions in connection with the Company's initial public offering. On November 12, 2018, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named in a putative class action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York captioned Langere v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., Index No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). The Langere complaint asserts on behalf of purchasers in the Company's IPO claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act") based on alleged misstatements in the registration statement filed in connection with the IPO and seeks unspecified damages. Certain underwriters of the IPO are also named as defendants. Since the filing of Langere, at least four additional putative class actions have been filed in the same court (collectively, the "State Cases"), asserting substantially similar allegations and claims under the 1933 Act against a common set of defendants: Dobek v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., Index No. 655707/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Zou v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., Index No. 655744/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Coombs v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., Index No. 656134/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); and Zhang et al. v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., Index No. 656164/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). Two of these actions, Dobek and Zou, also set forth additional claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act based on alleged misstatements in the prospectus filed in connection with the IPO. The Company and its officers and directors intend to defend themselves vigorously in all respects in regard to the State Cases, which are in the process of being consolidated. Under certain circumstances, the Company may be obligated to indemnify some or all of the other defendants in the State Cases. At this time, due to the uncertain nature of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate its costs or any potential liability related to the State Cases. On November 27, 2018, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named in a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Mustafin v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-11071 (S.D.N.Y.). The Mustafin complaint asserts on behalf of purchasers in the IPO claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the 1933 Act based on alleged misstatements in the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the IPO and seeks unspecified damages. Certain underwriters of the IPO are also named as defendants. On January 4, 2019, an additional putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Yu v. GreenSky, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00100 (S.D.N.Y.), asserting substantially similar allegations and claims under the 1933 Act against a common set of defendants (together with Mustafin, the "Federal Cases"). The Company and its officers and directors intend to defend themselves vigorously in all respect in regard to the Federal Cases. Under certain circumstances, the Company may be obligated to indemnify some or all of the other defendants in the Federal Cases. At this time, due to the uncertain nature of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate its costs or any potential liability related to the Federal Cases. GreenSky said, "As the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcomes of these actions, and cannot reasonably estimate the amount of potential loss, if any, we have not recorded a liability as of December 31, 2018 related to the IPO litigation." GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks. It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the full transaction lifecycle, including credit application, underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The Company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Abboud Sues over Auto-Dialed Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint against Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. has been filed over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned MONICA ABBOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-1035 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2019). Plaintiff Monica Abboud bring this class action complaint and demand for jury trial against Defendant Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. to (1) stop Defendant's practice of placing auto-dialed and pre-recorded voice calls to cellphone owners and (2) to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Defendant HII is a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Florida whose primary place of business and corporate headquarters is located at 15438 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 201, Tampa, Florida 33613. Defendant HII is a health care telemarketer that operates My Benefits Keeper, a healthcare app. HII makes telemarketing calls to persons who may be interested in purchasing health insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Craft Hughes, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713-322-6387 Fax: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Keippel Hits Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- Julian Keippel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell and Michael D. Hershberger, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00421 (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Health Insurance Innovations distributes individual and family health insurance plans, including short-term medical insurance plans and guaranteed-issue and underwritten health benefit insurance plans. Defendants failed to disclose that a substantial portion of its revenues were derived from third parties that utilized deceptive tactics to sell insurance policies, including overstating the policy's coverage and selling under licenses of employees who had no involvement in the underlying sales. On this news, the company's share price fell $1.93, or nearly 6%, to close at $31.20 per share on November 27, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. Keippel purchased Health Insurance Innovations securities and lost from the decline in its value after corrective disclosures. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: (772) 231-9600 Facsimile: (772) 231-0300 Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com HILTON WORLWIDE: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilton Worldwide, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02625 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., formerly Hilton Hotels Corporation, is an American multinational hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and resorts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com HYUNDAI MOTORS: Rexroad et al. Sue over Direct Injection Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSIE REXROAD, DEONTE WITCHER, EDUARDO SILVERA, CLAUDIA GALINDO, GUAN PERRY, MELISSA GURTLER, and JULIE ESQUEDA, individually 19 and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS CORPORATION, HYUNDAI MOTORS AMERICA, KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, and KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01461 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2019), contends that certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles contain an engine defect that can cause the vehicles to spontaneously catch fire with drivers and passengers barely escaping to safety. Specifically, a design/and or manufacturing defect in Class Vehicles' gasoline direct injection ("GDI") engines restricts oil flow to the engines' parts, such as the connecting rod bearings, causing those parts to wear out prematurely and seize. Not only can engine seizure cause engine failure, it can cause engine parts to break off and knock holes into the engine, leaking fluids and igniting a fire. As a result of the Engine Defect, Class Members, as well as passengers, other drivers, and 20 bystanders, are exposed to an unreasonable risk of accident, injury, or death should their vehicles engulf into flames or result in engine failure. Hyundai and Kia know of this Engine Defect and the safety risk it poses to consumers. But Hyundai and Kia also advertise on their websites that they conduct extensive testing. Moreover, Hyundai and Kia share the same testing facility in California City, California. Hyundai and Kia's joint testing should have alerted them to the defect in their GDI engines, the lawsuit says. Hyundai Motor Company, commonly known as Hyundai Motors, is a South Korean multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Seoul. Kia Motors Corporation, commonly known as Kia Motors, headquartered in Seoul, is South Korea's second-largest automobile manufacturer, following the Hyundai Motor Company, with sales of over 3.3 million vehicles in 2015.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Tanya S. Koshy, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com apersinger@tzlegal.com tkoshy@tzlegal.com - and - Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. Daniel Tropin, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com tropin@kolawyers.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-Mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-Mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com IMMUNE DESIGN: Witmer Says Solicitation Statement Misleading ------------------------------------------------------------ COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMMUNE DESIGN CORP., ED PENHOET, DAVID BALTIMORE, FRANKLIN M. BERGER, LEWIS COLEMAN, SUSAN L. KELLEY, CAROLS PAYA, WILLIAM R. RINGO, MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., and CASCADE MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00532-UNA (D. Del., March 18, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on February 21, 2019, pursuant to which Immune Design Corp. will be acquired by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Cascade Merger Sub Inc. On February 20, 2019, Immune's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Merck. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire all of Immune's outstanding common stock for $5.85 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire on April 1, 2019. On March 5, 2019, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. Immune is a late-stage immunotherapy company that employs next-generation in vivo approaches to enable the body's immune system to fight disease. The Company's technologies are engineered to activate the immune system's natural ability to generate and/or expand antigen-specific cytotoxic immune cells to fight cancer and other chronic diseases.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL: Lopez Brings ADA Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intercontinental Hotel Group Resources, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Intercontinental Hotel Group Resources, LLC, Intercontinental Hotels Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02644 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. owns, manages, franchises, and leases hotels. Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation owns and operates a chain of hotels and resorts in North America, South America, Central-America/the Caribbean, Africa, Europe, Australasia/the Oceania, the Asia Pacific, and the Middle East.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com INUVO INC: Bid to Dismiss Franchi Class Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Inuvo, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the "Franchi" putative class action lawsuit remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. On January 4, 2019, a purported stockholders of Inuvo, Adam Franchi, filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Franchi v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. A-19-787021-C in the District Court of the State of Nevada in the County of Clark. The complaint names Inuvo and the members of Inuvo's board of directors as defendants. It also names ConversionPoint Technologies, Inc. and various entities created to effect the merger as defendants. The complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duties claims arising from the adequacy of the disclosures relating to the merger transactions made in a joint consent solicitation statement/prospectus, and seeks an injunction preventing the parties from consummating the merger transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions are consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees. Inuvo believes the claims asserted are without merit. Inuvo intends to vigorously contest the lawsuit. On February 5, 2019, Inuvo filed motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the Franchi action, pending the resolution of the first-filed D'Arcy action. A hearing on the Franchi motion is yet to be scheduled. Inuvo, Inc., is a Nevada corporation with its principal executive offices located in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Company was incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in October 1987. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. INUVO INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Thomas Class Action Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Inuvo, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the putative class action lawsuit filed by Les Thomas remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. On January 8, 2019, respectively, a purported stockholder of Inuvo, Les Thomas, filed putative class action lawsuit, captioned Thomas v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. T19-57, in the District Court of the State of Nevada in the County of Clark. The complaint names Inuvo and the members of Inuvo's board of directors as defendants. The complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duties claims arising from the adequacy of the disclosures relating to the merger transactions made in a joint consent solicitation statement/prospectus, and seeks an injunction preventing the parties from consummating the merger transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions are consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees. Inuvo believes the claims asserted are without merit. Inuvo intends to vigorously contest the lawsuit. On January 25, 2018, the Thomas plaintiff filed a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the merger. A hearing on the preliminary injunction was scheduled for March 18, 2019. On February 14, 2019, Inuvo filed motions to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the Thomas action, pending the resolution of the first-filed D'Arcy action. A hearing on the Thomas motion was scheduled for April 1, 2019. Inuvo, Inc., is a Nevada corporation with its principal executive offices located in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Company was incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in October 1987. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. IRON MOUNTAIN: Removes Modica Suit to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JENNIFER MODICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 100, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2019-1140) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 1, 2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00370-TLN-EFB. The case is assigned to Troy L. Nunley and referred to Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq. Monica Rodriguez , Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com jbrophy@seyfarth.com morodriguez@seyfarth.com ISLAND YACHT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Island Yacht Management, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Island Yacht Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02634 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Island Yacht Management, Inc. is a professional and experienced yacht management and repair company dedicated to serving private boats in the British Virgin Islands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com KA FAI MANAGEMENT: Mishandled Security Deposits, Li et al. Say -------------------------------------------------------------- ZHUOER LI; YELISEI MURAUSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KA FAI MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19-0670C (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's unlawful practices of mishandling and failing to properly withhold and promptly return residential tenant's security deposits in violation of the Security Deposit Law. Ka Fai Management, Inc. is a Massachusetts company engaged in providing property management services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Gardner, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C. 1 State Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 390-7570 E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com - and - Edward Rice, Esq. 45 Pierce Street Malden, MA 02148 Telephone: (617) 475-0909 E-mail: ed@edricelaw.com - and - Christopher Saccardi, Esq. 58 Day St. Somerville, MA 02144 Telephone: (617) 500-3198 E-mail: chris@attorneysaccardi.com KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Class Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss putative shareholder class actions against it remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violations of the federal securities laws based on Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017. All the remaining cases are in the New York federal court, and lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed. Kandi has moved to dismiss the remaining cases and that motion remains pending. Kandi Technologies Group Inc manufactures small vehicles including all terrain vehicles (ATVs), golf carts, motor cycles, motor scooters and go-karts. The Company also is focused on the development of energy saving mini-cars. The company is based in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China. KAUFMAN ENTERPRISES: Pierre Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Pierre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kaufman Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 604065/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., Nassau Cty., March 25, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime, spread-of-hours pay, and other damages on behalf of all of Defendant's current and former Assistant Store Managers ("ASMs") based on Kaufman Enterprises' violation of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and appropriate rules and regulations. Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been victims of Kaufman Enterprises' common policy and plan that has violated their rights under the NYLL by requiring ASMs to work over 40-hours a week without overtime pay and shifts with a spread of over 10 hours a day without the benefit of spread-of-hours pay, says the complaint. Plaintiff Pierre was employed by Defendant from April 2007 through October 2017. Kaufman Enterprises operates 16 McDonald's restaurants across Suffolk and Nassau County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 499-9100 KITE PHARMA: Aguilar Files Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kite Pharma, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Aguilar, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kite Pharma, Inc., TRINET HR CORPORATION, TRINET HR III INC., TRINET HR III-A INC., TRINET HR V INC., Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10001 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Mar. 22, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Promissory Note/Collections Case". Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, develops cancer immunotherapy products with a primary focus on genetically engineered autologous T cell therapy with chimeric antigen receptors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represnetd by Lavi Joseph, Esq. KRAFT HEINZ: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP with the assistance of former California Deputy Attorney General and Special Counsel, Tiffany Johnson, Esq., is investigating potential claims against The Kraft Heinz Company ("Kraft Heinz") (NASDAQ: KHC) for violations of state and federal securities laws. On February 21, 2019, Kraft Heinz announced that it had received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 2018 in connection with an investigation into the Company's "procurement area, more specifically the [c]ompany's accounting policies, procedures, and internal controls related to its procurement function." Additionally, Kraft Heinz announced disappointing quarterly results, including a $15 billion charge related to the value of its Kraft and Oscar Mayer trademarks, and cut its dividend from 63 cents per share to 40 cents per share. Following this news, shares of Kraft Heinz fell sharply, closing down 27.46% on February 22, 2019. If you have information that could assist in this investigation, including past employees and others, or if you are an Kraft Heinz shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. Jim Baker, Esq. Johnson Fistel, LLP Telephone: 619-814-4471 Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150 In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order of the court in March 2018. 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 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. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in Pennsylvania entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation. In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by 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 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf. The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. 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. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS Inc.'s Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. The Lincoln 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. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LORI LOUGHLIN: Faces Class Action Over College Admissions Scandal ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER KAY TOY, JOSHUA TOY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated (estimated at over 1,000,000) v. LORI LOUGHLIN, MOSSIMO GIANNULLI, FELICITY HUFFMAN, GREGORY ABBOTT, MARCIA ABBOTT, GAMAL ABDELAZIZ, DIANE BLAKE, TODD BLAKE, JANE BUCKINGHAM, GORDON CAPLAN, I-HSIN "JOEY" CHEN, AMY COLBURN, GREGORY COLBURN, ROBERT FLAXMAN, ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ, MANUEL HENRIQUEZ, DOUGLAS HODGE, AGUSTIN HUNEEUS, JR., BRUCE ISACKSON, DAVINA ISACKSON, MICHELLE JANAVS, ELISABETH KIMMEL, MARJORIE KLAPPER, TOBY MACFARLANE, WILLIAM E. MCGLASHAN, JR., MARCI PALATELLA, PETER JAN SARTORIO, STEPHEN SEMPREVIVO, DEVIN SLOANE, JOHN B. WILSON, HOMAYOUN ZADEH, ROBERT ZANGRILL, BILL MCGLASHAN, WILLAIM SINGER, DONNA HEINAL, RUDOLPH MERIDITH, MARK RIDDELL, JOHN VANDEMOER, IGOR DVORSKIY, GORDON ERNST, WILLIAM FERGUSON, LAURA JANKE, AND DOES 1-99, Case No. CGC-19-574501 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., March 13, 2019), arises from the college admissions cheating scandal prosecuted by Andrew Lelling, the U.S. District Attorney of Massachusetts. According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired with others known and unknown: (1) to bribe college entrance exam administrators to facilitate cheating on college entrance exams; (2) to bribe varsity coaches and administrators at elite universities to designate certain applicants as recruited athletes or as other favored candidates, thereby, facilitating the applicants' admission to those universities; and (3) to use the facade of a charitable organization to conceal the nature and source of the bribe payments. The Defendants are identified as conspirators. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel King, Esq. 3680 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite P04 -1313 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (310) 909-7580 E-mail: daniel@firstratelaw.com LSCI INC: Becker Suit Asserts TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------- Cody Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LSCI, INC D/B/A SUN-TEC, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00704 (M.D. Fla., March 22, 2019) is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), arising from Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the TCPA. As part of its marketing strategy, the Defendant calls unsuspecting parties on their cellular telephones with pre-recorded messages in order to sell them goods and services. The Defendant caused thousands of pre-recorded messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Broward County, Florida. Defendant sells, installs and maintains solar energy products including solar water heaters, solar pool heaters and solar photovoltaic systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-533-4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Putative Class Action in New Jersey Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is facing a putative class action complaint filed on in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 11, 2019, alleging that Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for control person liability) by making misrepresentations about the Company and its business, including the Company's risk management and underwriting policies and practices. According to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, the putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M. Marshaleck. Plaintiffs further claim that these misrepresentations inflated the price of Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell, causing Plaintiffs to incur losses. The Company said, "Maiden has not yet been served with the complaint, but believe the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. There exist and the Company expects additional lawsuits to be filed against the Company, its subsidiaries and its respective officers due to the diminution in value of our securities as a result of our operating results and financial condition. It is currently uncertain as to the effect of such litigation on our business, operating results and financial conditions." Maiden Holdings, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides reinsurance solutions to regional and specialty insurers primarily in Europe and internationally. The Company writes treaties on a quota share basis and excess of loss basis. It also offers auto and credit life insurance products through its insurer partners to retail clients. Maiden Holdings, Ltd. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Meter et al. Suit Moves to D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit GARY METER and RONALD BOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC and STARWOOD INTERNATIONAL & RESORT WORLDWIDE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00025, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on March 1, 2019. The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00513-PWG-PWG to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Judge Paul W. Grimm. Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. Marriott International, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erin Green Comite SCOTTSCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main St., Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Joseph P Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTTSCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel R Warren, Esq. Lisa M Ghannoum, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP Key Tower 127 Public Square Ste. 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 861-7145 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com lghannoum@bakerlaw.com - and - Gilbert S Keteltas, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Ste. 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-1530 Facsimile: (202) 861-1783 E-mail: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com MARRONE BIO: July 11 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P, and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP Defendants. Master No.: 2:14-cv-2571-MCE-KJN Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY AND CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; (II) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (III) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (IV) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons or entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired MBI common stock directly in or traceable to the Company's secondary offering pursuant to MBI's Form S-1 Registration Statement, dated May 16, 2014, and its Prospectus dated June 5, 2014, and were damaged thereby (the "EY Settlement Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action with respect to claims asserted against Ernst & Young LLP ("EY" or the "Settling Defendant") on behalf of the class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Certification of Settlement Class; (II) Proposed Settlement; (III) Settlement Hearing; and (IV) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. ("Lead Plaintiffs" or "The Funds"), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the EY Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with Defendant Ernst & Young LLP ("EY" or the "Settling Defendant," and together with Lead Plaintiffs, the "Settling Parties") for $775,000 in cash (the "EY Settlement"). The EY Settlement, if approved, will resolve all claims in the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (the "Court") against EY. The claims asserted against EY are the only remaining claims in this Action and, therefore, if the EY Settlement is approved by the Court, the Action will be completely resolved subject to any appeals.1 A hearing will be held on July 11, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Robert T. Matsui United States Court House, Courtroom 7, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated January 14, 2019 (and in the Notice) should be granted; and (ii) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the EY Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the EY Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at MBI EY Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 3219, Portland, OR 97208-3219, by toll-free phone at (855) 907-3227, or by email at info@MBISecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from www.MBISecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com. If you are a member of the EY Settlement Class and previously submitted a Claim Form in connection with the Secondary Offering Class in the previously announced MBI Settlement in this Action, you do not need to submit a Claim Form again. Unless you properly exclude yourself from the EY Settlement Class, your earlier Claim Form will be considered for participation in this Settlement. If you are an EY Settlement Class Member and DID NOT submit a Claim Form in connection with the MBI Settlement, however, YOU MUST SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM, postmarked no later than May 6, 2019, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund (as defined in the Stipulation and the Notice). This is the only way to now be eligible to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund. If you are an EY Settlement Class Member and you remain in the EY Settlement Class, you will be bound by the EY Settlement as approved by the Court and you will give up any Released Lead Plaintiffs' Claims (defined in ¶ 43 of the Notice) that you have against EY and EY's Releasees (defined in ¶ 44 of the Notice), so it is in your interest to submit a Claim Form. If you are a member of the EY Settlement Class and have not previously submitted a Claim Form in connection with the Secondary Offering Class in the previously announced MBI Settlement in this Action and do not submit a Claim Form now, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the EY Settlement. You will, however, nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the EY Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the EY Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 27, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed EY Settlement and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and EY's Counsel such that they are received no later than June 27, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, EY, MBI, or EY's counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: MBI EY Securities Litigation c/o Epiq P.O. Box 3219 Portland, OR 97208-3219 (855) 907-3227 www.MBISecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 (212) 262-6700 Dated: March 5, 2019 By Order of the Court 1 The current proposed settlement is in addition to another partial settlement -- the "MBI Settlement" -- previously approved by the Court, resulting in an aggregate recovery of $12 million, $3,869,616 of which was allocated and distributed (net of fees and expenses) to members of the EY Settlement Class. If approved, the proposed EY Settlement will constitute an additional and supplemental distribution of settlement funds to the EY Settlement Class. [GN] MASSACHUSETTS: District Judge Faces Liviz Suit in D. Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, ILYA LIVIZ SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HON. JUDGE LEO T. SOROKIN, District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10392 (D. Mass., March 2, 2019) alleges violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights and the Sherman Antitrust Act. According to the Plaintiff, he filed a Parents' Class Action against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on Aug. 9, 2018. A Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8, was held before the Defendant Judge on January 22, 2019, and was shortly dismissed on January 24, 2019. The Defendant Judge has ordered the Plaintiff to produce names of the parties that were listed under pseudonyms. The Plaintiff wanted to first speak with the court in regarding how to best handle this order. The Defendant Judge responded that he don't give legal advice to the Plaintiffs or to the Defendants. The Defendant Judge has the requisite knowledge and ability to give correct legal advice, but as the Defendant Judge stated previously, he is not allowed to give legal advice. The case was dismissed without the Defendant Judge telling the Plaintiff in advance pursuant what legal basis, and no legal help was offered to correct in advance. The State of Massachusetts is located in the Northeastern region of the United States. The State provides a full range of services including law, education, public libraries, transportation, and business development. Massachusetts has an economy that is primarily based on health care, biotechnology, finance, and tourism. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilya Liviz, Esq. NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR JURISTS Central Street Lowell, MA 01852 Telephone: (978) 606-3632 E-mail: ilya.liviz@gmail.com MBT FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Pauli Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- MBT Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is seeking dismissal of the class action commenced by Christopher Pauli. On January 9, 2019, MBT was sued by David Pill ("Pill"), a purported MBT stockholder, on behalf of and a putative class of all MBT stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates. On January 18, 2019, MBT was sued by Christopher Pauli, a purported MBT stockholder, on behalf of himself and a putative class of all MBT stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates. Both the Pill case and the Pauli case were filed as putative class actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and are titled as follows: (i) David Pill v. MBT Financial Corp, et al., and (ii) Christopher Pauli v. MBT Financial Corp, et al. Both cases name each MBT director and MBT as defendants. Both complaints allege violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The allegations are that MBT and its directors violated the Exchange Act by omitting certain material information from First Merchants' Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), which includes First Merchants' prospectus with respect to the shares of First Merchants' common stock to be issued to MBT stockholders in the proposed merger and the MBT proxy statement for the MBT special stockholders' meeting that was held on February 14, 2019. The relief sought by the complaint includes preliminary and permanent injunction from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed merger, directing MBT to amend its proxy statement, and damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Plaintiff in the Pauli case filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to delay the MBT special stockholder meeting. The court ruled against the plaintiff, and the special meeting of shareholders took place on February 14, 2019, at which meeting MBT shareholders approved the Merger. Following the special shareholder meeting, the plaintiff in the Pill case voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice as to plaintiff Pill and without prejudice as to the purported class, thereby ending the case. MBT has filed a motion to dismiss the Pauli case. MBT will vigorously defend the remaining federal court case and believes it is wholly without merit. MBT Financial Corp. operates as the bank holding company for the Monroe Bank & Trust that provides retail and commercial banking, and trust services to small and middle-market businesses and middle-income individuals. The company was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Monroe, Michigan. MBT FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Viky Class Action Underway -------------------------------------------------------- MBT Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is seeking dismissal of a class action entitled, Gaylord Viky v. Michael J. Miller, et. al. case. MBT Financial Corp. has been sued, on the dates indicated, in the following state court cases, all filed as putative class actions in the Circuit Court for the County of Monroe, Michigan, naming each MBT director and MBT as defendants. -- December 20, 2018, Gaylord Viky v. Michael J. Miller, et. al. -- January 11, 2019, Paul Parshall v. MBT Financial Corp., et. al. -- January 15, 2019, Gary Nowitzke v. MBT Financial Corp, et al. -- January 15, 2019, Gary Zimmer v. MBT Financial Corp, et al. The complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other claims, that MBT directors have breached their fiduciary duties by omitting certain material information from First Merchants' Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC, which includes First Merchants' prospectus with respect to the shares of First Merchants' common stock to be issued to MBT stockholders in the Merger and the MBT proxy statement for the MBT special stockholders' meeting that was held on February 14, 2019. The Gary Zimmer case is also styled as a derivative claim brought on behalf of MBT and includes allegations of self-dealing relating to the First Merchants transaction. The relief sought by the complaints includes preliminary and permanent injunction from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed merger, rescission and rescissory damages if the proposed merger is completed, and damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. MBT has filed a motion to dismiss the Gaylord Viky case. No filings of note have occurred in the other three state court cases. MBT will vigorously defend all of the above state court cases and believes they are wholly without merit. MBT Financial Corp. operates as the bank holding company for the Monroe Bank & Trust that provides retail and commercial banking, and trust services to small and middle-market businesses and middle-income individuals. The company was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Monroe, Michigan. MCCARTHY'S BOAT: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy's Boat Yard, Inc. d/b/a McCarthy's Marine. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. McCarthy's Boat Yard, Inc. d/b/a McCarthy's Marine, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02629 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. McCarthy's Marine is New Jersey's dealer for Boston Whaler located on the Manasquan River.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com MDL 2804: Jefferson County to Retain Legal Counsel in Opioid Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Watertown Daily Times reports that members of the Jefferson County Board of Legislators have reversed a previous decision and will retain legal counsel as a pretext to suing pharmaceutical companies over the opioid addiction epidemic. Municipalities across the state have initiated legal action against opioid manufacturers to recoup the costs associated with the abuse of these drugs. They include Lewis and St. Lawrence counties, which both joined a lawsuit filed by the New York City law firm of Simmons, Hanly, Conroy P.C. In October, Jefferson County legislators voted 7-4 on a resolution to move forward with its own lawsuit. The measure failed to get the minimum eight votes necessary to pass. But on March 5, they had a change of heart. Legislator John D. Peck, who chairs the Health and Human Services Committee, believed bringing forth the resolution again was warranted since not all 15 members of the board attended the fall meeting when the initial vote occurred. Legislator Carolyn D. Fitzpatrick switched sides to ensure the resolution's passage. "She said she changed her vote after speaking to doctors she knew and carefully reading the resolution, which commits the county to retain an attorney 'to evaluate Jefferson County's potential damages and causes of action subject to review, approval, and retention by the county attorney' but not to litigation without further approval," according to a story published on March 6 by the Watertown Daily Times. "Moving forward, she felt, was the best way to get the important information." As with their counterparts in Northern New York, Jefferson County legislators are taking appropriate action. Lewis and St. Lawrence counties both signed on to a class-action suit last year. In August, New York joined more than a dozen other states to proceed with its own legal action. "According to the lawsuit, each year St. Lawrence County spends millions of dollars for the health care, pharmaceutical care and other necessary services and programs for 'indigents' and otherwise eligible residents, including payments for prescription opioid painkillers which are manufactured, marketed, promoted, sold and/or distributed by the named defendants," according to a Times story published Jan. 14, 2018. "The complaint states that opioid prescription rates more than tripled in Lewis County from 2007 to 2016 and there was a 77.5 percent increase in opioid-related Lewis County emergency department admissions from 2010 to 2014," an April 17, 2018, Times story reported. Opioid manufacturers deserve a good portion of the blame for the epidemic. They have been accused of employing misleading marketing tactics to persuade health care authorities to prescribe more medications. But pharmaceutical companies are not alone here. Many in the broader medical community share responsibility for creating this crisis. "In the mid-1990s, the American Pain Society aggressively pushed the concept of pain as the fifth vital sign. Their stated goals included raising awareness that patients with pain were undertreated in large part because, in the society's opinion, pain was not regularly assessed at physician office visits or even in the hospital after surgery," according to a story in the June 2016 edition of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. "Half a decade later, the Joint Commission and others hopped on this train, emphasizing that pain needs to be regularly assessed in all patients, that pain is a subjective measure, unlike the heart rate or blood pressure, and that physicians must accept and respect patient self-reporting of pain. Concurrent with these efforts was the enhanced promotion of pain medications — new highly touted and frequently prescribed narcotics as well as nonnarcotic medications remarketed as analgesics. Opportunistically, or perhaps wielding inappropriate and sketchy influence, some drug manufacturers in the early 2000s funded publications and physician presentations to encourage the expanded use of opioids and other medications for pain control." The Joint Commission presented its new Pain Management Standards in 2001, designating pain as the "fifth vital sign." Multiple forces have since combined to create an environment where opioid abuse has become rampant. Local governments must press drug firms to compensate them for the excessive costs involved in confronting this horror. But we all should demand that other culpable parties make the effort to help resolve a situation that has destroyed far too many lives. [GN] MDL 2875: Duffy Suit v. Aurobindo over Valsartan Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Elizabeth Duffy, Joseph Cacaccio, and Cecil Byrd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A., INC.CVS HEALTH CO., RITE AID CORPORATION, and Throggs Neck Pharmacy, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00088, (Filed Jan. 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 15, 2019. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-08591 to the proceeding. The suit demands $9,999,000 and alleges product liability for personal injury caused by the use of generic valsartan. The Duffy case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2875, Re: VALSARTAN N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) CONTAMINATION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 14, 2019. This litigation arises out of an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration into impurities found in generic drug products containing valsartan, a medication indicated for the treatment of high blood pressure and other conditions. During the course of the FDA investigation, a number of voluntary recalls of generic valsartan medications were issued. Purchasers of recalled lots of generic valsartan subsequently filed actions alleging economic losses. The initial wave of consumer class actions was followed by actions alleging personal injuries from the ingestion of affected valsartan medications, as well as other related litigation. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that plaintiffs purchased or used generic formulations of valsartan medications containing the nitrosamine impurities NDMA and/or NDEA; that these impurities present a risk of cancer and liver damage; and that defendants knew, or should have known, of the impurities as early as 2012. All actions stem from the same FDA investigation and voluntary recall announced in July 2018, and the voluntary recalls are ongoing. Although the investigation, and the earliest-filed actions, focused on Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. as the source of the alleged impurities, the FDA investigation and the actions before the Panel now encompass alleged industry-wide issues concerning the production of the valsartan active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) which will be common to all actions. The common questions of fact include: (1) whether the generic valsartan sold by defendants contained NDMA or NDEA; (2) the cause of the alleged impurities, including alleged defects in the manufacturing and sampling process; (3) when defendants knew or should have known of the impurities; (4) how long the NDMA- and NDEA- containing valsartan medications were in circulation; and (5) whether the amounts of NDMA and NDEA in the medications presented a risk of cancer or other injuries. All of the valsartan actions will raise these issues, regardless of whether the alleged supplier of the valsartan API was Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mylan, Hetero Labs Limited, or some other entity. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler. The lead case is Case No.1:19-md-02875-RBK-JS. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. provides formulations, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and intermediates in China and internationally.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Scott A. Bursor, esq. BURSOR & FISHER PA 888 Seventh Ave. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Timmons Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Taryn Timmons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. the Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 521122/2018, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on March 15, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01492 to the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 and alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation. Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for the Defendant: Matthew B Corwin, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Campau & Meng Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES C. CAMPAU and YUMEI MENG, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01358-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Castleberrys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------------- MALCOLM C. CASTLEBERRY and KATHERYN R. CASTLEBERRY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01359-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Clarks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- MELONEASE CLARK and JAMES CLARK, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01360-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Dangels Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES J. DANGEL and CHERYL DANGEL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01375-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Jung Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- GERHARD JUNG, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01361-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 25, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Products Causes Cancer, Graef Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SHAUN GRAEF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY; and DOES 1-1000, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07149 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate which causes cancer. According to the complaint, the Defendants market and sell their Roundup products containing glyphosate. Glyphosate has been found to be carcinogenic, linked to causing various forms of cancer, and in particular non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. As such, Roundup is dangerous to human health and unfit to be marketed and sold in commerce, particularly without proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. Christopher T. Aumais Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq. GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904 Telephone: (213) 977-0211 Facsimile: (213) 481-1554 E-mail: tigirardi@girardikeese.com caumais@girardikeese.com amohamadi@girardikeese.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Tomlinson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BOYD TOMLINSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01357-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MOPHIE INC: Dennis Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mophie Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Mophie Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01665 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mophie, Inc. designs and manufactures mobile battery cases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Ruling Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the court's order granting the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a California class action lawsuit over the company's initial public offering remains pending. On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against Natera, its directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed, or held, pending the appeal. The Company also filed a demurrer, or a request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017. The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without leave to re-file. The San Mateo Superior Court granted the demurrer as to Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file. Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs opposed. Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018. On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on or about October 18, 2018. Natera said, "The Company intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raychel Lean, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Florida, Texas, Philadelphia, Ohio, North Carolina and Nevada are among 14 states affected by an alleged price-fixing conspiracy, according to a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illinois on March 6. The lawsuit accuses the National Association of Realtors and four of the country's leading real estate brokerage companies of violating the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust law aimed at blocking monopolies. The National Association of Realtors is the country's largest trade association, with 1.3 million members, according to its website. The complaint takes issue with a rule in association's handbook — the Buyer Broker Commission Rule — which instructs brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer for compensation when listing properties on its Multiple Listing Service, known as MLS. The four brokerage companies -- Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America Inc. RE/MAX Holdings Inc. and Keller Williams Realty Inc. -- allegedly used their collective market power to inflate commission rates, snuffing out competition and cheating home sellers out of thousands of dollars per sale, according to the suit. The complaint claims the problem stretches across the country, and points to 20 different real estate listing applications, including My Florida Regional MLS and the Bright MLS, which covers multiple states including Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. NAR's vice president of communications, Mantill Williams, denied the claims. "The complaint is baseless and contains an abundance of false claims," Williams said. "The U.S. courts have routinely found that Multiple Listing Services are pro-competitive, and benefit consumers by creating great efficiencies in the home-buying and selling process. NAR looks forward to obtaining a similar precedent regarding this filing." Trey Sarten, a spokesman for defendant Realogy, also denied the allegations. "We believe this case has no merit and will not be commenting further," Sarten said. Keller Williams spokesperson Darryl Frost and RE/MAX spokesperson Jennifer Armbruster declined to comment. Plaintiffs lawyer Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman in Seattle, was unavailable before deadline but told the Associated Press on March 11 he's compared commission rates in affected housing markets to rates in countries that have a competitive market and found, "the numbers tell a very clear story." "We believe the NAR and the Big Four have devised a series of checks on broker commission rates to all but guarantee their goal of price-fixing, costing home sellers thousands in excessive commissions paid on each sale," Berman said. The complaint said if a class member sold a house for $500,000, for example, they'd have paid an extra $12,500 to $15,000 extra in commission. But the suit points out that sellers in countries without the Buyer Broker Commission Rule -- like Germany, Australia and the United Kingdom -- don't have to use brokers, and if they do they'll pay them less than half the amount sellers pay in the U.S. The lawsuit asks for damages, interest, attorney fees and a permanent injunction barring the defendants from requiring sellers to pay a set commission fee. [GN] NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Smith Insurance Row Removed to E.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as Brendan Smith, individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 190201323 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 22, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01217-MMB. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and affiliated companies is a group of large U.S. insurance and financial services companies based in Columbus, OH.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron B. Gorodetzer, Esq. SBARBARO LAW OFFICES, LLC 1221 WEST CHESTER PIKE WEST CHESTER, PA 19382 Phone: (610) 344-7300 Fax: (610) 441-7523 Email: AARON@SBARBAROLAW.COM - and - James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH PC 1835 MARKET ST STE 2700 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 350-6609 Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com - and - Scott B. Cooper, Esq. SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C. 209 STATE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 232-6300 Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com The Defendant is represented by: Pamela A. Carlos, Esq. BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLP 1601 MARKET ST., 16TH FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-3315 Fax: (215) 561-6661 Email: carlos@bbs-law.com NCAA: Johnson Claims Damages Over Injuries Sustained ---------------------------------------------------- James Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00728 (S.D. Ind., February 18, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. Johnson played football at the State University of New York from 2006 to 2008. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. He now suffers from anxiety, depression, sleeping difficulties, loss of impulse control, loss of inhibition, irritability and suicidal thoughts. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. Johnson alleges NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college football, but did nothing. Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: 844.456.4823 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com NCAA: Porcelli Sues Over Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Porcelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00732 (S.D. Ind., February 18, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. Porcelli played football at the Long Island University from 1988 to 1989. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. He now suffers from anxiety, depression, emotional instability, loss of impulse control, loss of inhibition, memory loss, loss of concentration, motor impairment and speech and language impairment. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. Porcelli alleges NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college football, but did nothing. Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 589-6370 Fax: (312) 589-6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: (415) 212-9300 Fax: (415) 373-9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (844) 456-4823 Fax: (713) 554-9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com NEW YORK: Faces Dorce Suit over Civil Rights Violation ------------------------------------------------------ A civil action has been filed against the City of New York, Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Co. Inc., BSDC Kings Covenant Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. and Maria Torres-Springer, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. The case is captioned Dorce et al v. City of New York et al Case No. 1:19-cv-02216-DAB (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2019). It is assigned to Judge Deborah A. Batts. McConnell Dorce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges defendants' violation of the Civil Rights Act. The New York City government employs more than 300,000 civil servants who work to ensure the city promotes public safety, public health and opportunity. Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Corporation and its affiliate nonprofit entities (Restored Homes HDFC, Restoring Communities HDFC, Preserving City Neighborhoods HDFC, and Project Rebuild, Inc.) collaborate with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development on programs that seek to foster neighborhood stabilization by efficiently transitioning properties from physical and financial abandonment to responsible third party ownership. Neighborhood Restore also utilizes citywide partnerships to create affordable homeownership opportunities for households of low- and moderate- income. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Berman Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP 600 Old Country Rd., Ste. 519 City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248 E-mail: mberman@vkvlawyers.com NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Kohmetscher Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against NextEra Energy, Inc. The case is captioned as KEVIN KOHMETSCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTERA ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80281-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 1, 2019), and is assigned to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks and referred to Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon. NextEra Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electric power to retail and wholesale customers in North America. The company was formerly known as FPL Group, Inc. and changed its name to NextEra Energy, Inc. in 2010. NextEra Energy, Inc. was founded in 1925 and is headquartered in Juno Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Patrick Healy, Esq. 2846 B Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Fl 32308 Telephone: (850) 222-5400 Facsimile: 222-7339 E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com NISOURCE INC: Kahn Swick Probes Officers and Directors ------------------------------------------------------ Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"), disclosed that KSF has commenced an investigation into NiSource Inc. (NYSE: NI). On September 13, 2018, numerous gas explosions destroyed dozens of homes and businesses in Massachusetts, causing one death, dozens of injuries, and the forced relocation of approximately 8,600 households, which investigators determined was caused by over-pressurization of a gas main belonging to Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NiSource. On November 1, 2018, the Company disclosed that it was "subject to a criminal investigation" by the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney's Office and had been served with grand jury subpoenas. Recently, the Company disclosed that it is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to its financial disclosures prior to the explosions. The Company's actions, directed by its executives, have exposed it to significant litigation including a class action lawsuit brought by the victims of the explosions for failing to properly and safely maintain its gas distribution system, as well as the cost of defending the Company against government investigations and the penalties, fines and other liabilities and expenses associated with those investigations. KSF's investigation is focusing on whether NiSource's officers and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to NiSource's shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws. If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation, or have been a long-term holder of NiSource shares and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, Esq. -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ni/ to learn more. Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: 1-877-515-1850 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Post Commanders, Walker Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JESSYKA WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORRED & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07093 (Cal. Super., March 1, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Walker was employed by the Defendants as post commander. Norred & Associates, Inc. provides corporate security and investigative services. Norred & Associates, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia with additional offices in Macon and Savannah, Georgia; Birmingham and Gulf Shores, Alabama; Chicago, Illinois; Fort Worth, Dallas, and Houston, Texas; Hilton Head, South Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Los Angeles, California; Memphis, Tennessee; Miami and Orlando, Florida; Newark, New Jersey; Portland, Oregon; Manchester, New Hampshire; Buffalo, New York; and Charleston, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Diego Aviles, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com diego@tomorrowlaw.com NORTHERN BIRCH: Samarasinghe Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- ROSHAN NISHENDRA SEPALA SAMARASINGHE, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTHERN BIRCH INC. d/b/a A DOLLAR and MOHAMMED N. MOHAMED ISHAAK, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01596 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2019), seeks unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and such other relief purduant to the the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and the Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and party plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage. The plaintiff worked a spread of hours more than ten each day, yet the Defendants willfully failed to pay the plaintiff spread-of-hours compensation. The defendants failed to provide the plaintiff with a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring. The Defendants also failed to provide the plaintiff with a statement with each payment of wages. Northern Birch Ltd. owns and operates a retail store that distributes household furniture and home furnishing products.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com NORTHERN OIL: Jeffrey Fries Class Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has dismissed the class action filed by Jeffrey Fries. On December 10, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed, with prejudice, a class action that was originally brought on August 18, 2016 by plaintiff Jeffrey Fries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the company, Michael Reger (the company's former chief executive officer), and Thomas Stoelk (the company's former chief financial officer and interim chief executive officer) as defendants. The original complaint was amended by plaintiff in July 2017. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in January 2018, but permitted plaintiff the opportunity to further amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in January 2018. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, with prejudice, in December 2018. The complaints purported to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company's securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and sought to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Northern Oil said, "Plaintiff did not appeal the court's dismissal of the second amended complaint, and this matter is now fully dismissed." Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development, and production of crude oil and natural gas properties in the United States. The company primarily holds interests in the Bakken and Three Forks formations in the Williston Basin of North Dakota and Montana. The company is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. NOSTRAND CRICKET: Duran Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums ------------------------------------------------------ Carolina Duran, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nostrand Cricket Inc., Cricket Pitkin Inc., Mohammad Butt, John Does #1-10 and other affiliated companies controlled by Mohammad Butt, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01654 (E.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which Plaintiff did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA. The Defendants failed to pay Ms. Duran any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, asserts the complaint. The Defendants' failure to pay Ms. Duran the overtime bonus for overtime hours worked was willful, and lacked a good faith basis, adds the complaint. Ms. Duran was employed at one or more of the Cricket Stores from approximately February 2016 through June 2018. Defendants owned and operated a chain of approximately a dozen Cricket Wireless stores in New York City, including at least Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 563-9884 Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com NOTTINGHAM'S LLC: James Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Emily James, Plaintiff, v. Nottingham's LLC d/b/a Nottingham's Tavern, Defendants, Case No. C-13-cv-19-000140 was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Howard County to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on March 21, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00849. Plaintiff Emily James a/k/a Emily Reese ("James") filed this Class and Collective Action Complaint on February 4, 2019. James alleges that Defendant "perpetrated an unlawful practice or scheme of taking, assigning, and keeping cash tips that belonged" to Plaintiffs, and kept the cash tips in its cash registers. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. Roy Lyford-Pike, Esq. Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 The Defendants are represented by: Stephen G. Grygiel, Esq. Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin, White, LLC 201 N. Charles Street, 26th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 385-2225 Email: sgrygiel@mdattorney.com OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Menaldi Case Settlement Has Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In a January 16, 2019 hearing, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has entered final approval of the settlement in the case styled Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Mgmt., et al., and entered an order and judgment approving the settlement in all respects and dismissing the action with prejudice, according to Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. On May 5, 2014, a purported class of shareholders filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Mgmt., et al.). The amended complaint asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all purchasers of Company securities from February 9, 2012 to August 22, 2014. Daniel Och, Joel Frank and Michael Cohen were also named as defendants. On March 16, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 17, 2016, the court entered an order granting in part the motion to dismiss filed by the Company and Messrs. Och and Frank and dismissing Mr. Cohen from the action. On March 23, 2016, the Company and Messrs. Och and Frank filed their answer to the amended complaint. On November 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all purchasers of Company securities from November 18, 2011 to April 11, 2016. The second amended complaint alleged, among other things, breaches of certain disclosure obligations with respect to matters that were under investigation by the SEC and the DOJ, and named the Company and Messrs. Och, Frank and Cohen as defendants. On November 23, 2016, Mr. Cohen objected to being named as a defendant in the second amended complaint on procedural grounds. On December 21, 2016, the court directed the plaintiffs to file a motion for permission to renew their claims against Mr. Cohen. Plaintiffs filed their motion on January 7, 2017. On January 11, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the second amended complaint that sought to revive dismissed claims or assert new claims against it, and Messrs. Och and Frank filed motions to dismiss as well. On September 29, 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiffs' revived claims and new claims against the Company and Messrs. Och and Frank. The court also dismissed Mr. Cohen from the matter entirely and denied plaintiffs' request to file a further amended complaint. On September 14, 2017, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On September 17, 2018, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. On October 2, 2018, the parties' stipulation of settlement was filed with the court. Under the parties' stipulation of settlement, the Company agreed to pay US$28.8 million in exchange for a full release from plaintiffs and the class members they represent. On October 3, 2018, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On December 17, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. On January 16, 2019 the court held a hearing for final approval of the settlement and entered an order and judgment approving the settlement in all respects and dismissing the action with prejudice. OLIN CORPORATION: Amrex Files Anti-trust Suit in New York Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- Amrex Chemical Co., Inc., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation (d/b/a OxyChem), Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00386 (W.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks damages and injunctive relief against the Defendants under the antitrust laws of the United States. From approximately 2012 until the fourth quarter of 2015, Caustic Soda prices were either declining or flat, and industry margins were poor, given industry overcapacity and flat demand. These conditions motivated the Defendants to conspire and combine to restrict domestic supply; to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which Caustic Soda was and continues to be sold; and to allocate customers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, asserts the complaint. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Defendants announced Caustic Soda price increases in a coordinated fashion and began increasing Caustic Soda prices despite sluggish demand, stable or declining costs, and excess capacity, notes the complaint. They also at times refused to supply customers, put them on allocation, or refused to bid on contracts while falsely claiming supply was tight or scarce, says the Plaintiff. Average quarterly North American undiscounted Caustic Soda prices declined approximately 6% between the fourth quarter of 2012 through the third quarter of 2015. Since the fourth quarter of 2015, however, numerous across-the-board price increases were implemented by the Defendants that impacted all purchasers of Caustic Soda, and prices have increased more than 50%. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, and their transition from passive members of an oligopoly to active coordinators of supply and pricing, Caustic Soda prices in the United States paid by Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been artificially increased by a substantial amount, and maintained during the Class Period above levels that would be expected due to supply and demand conditions, alleges the complaint. Plaintiff purchased Caustic Soda directly from one or more Defendants during the Class Period. Olin manufactures, sells, and distributes Caustic Soda either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents, or affiliates, including defendant K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., to customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marco Cercone, Esq. R. Anthony Rupp III, Esq. Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 854-3400 Facsimile: (716) 332-0336 Email: cercone@ruppbaase.com rupp@ruppbaase.com bailey@ruppbaase.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Matthew P. McCahill, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Ave., 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 687-1980 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com mmccahill@kaplanfox.com ORACLE CORP: Kahn Swick Officers and Directors ---------------------------------------------- Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"), disclosed that KSF has commenced an investigation into Oracle Corporation (NYSE: ORCL). In January 2017 the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") filed suit against the Company's subsidiary, Oracle America, Inc., alleging systemic pay discrimination practices against female, African American, and Asian employees and other discriminatory employment practices. Recently, the presiding judge denied Oracle's request to dismiss the case and the DOL amended its complaint to add additional evidence that, among other things, Oracle underpaid female and nonwhite workers by more than $400 million over four years and steered such employees to low-level positions with low starting salaries resulting in "female, black and Asian employees with years of experience [being] paid as much as 25 percent less than their peers." Oracle has also been sued in a class action gender bias lawsuit filed in August 2017 on behalf of female employees alleging systematic underpayment, which is ongoing. KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Oracle Corporation's officers and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to its shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws. If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation, or have been a long-term holder of Oracle Corporation shares and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, Esq. -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-orcl/ to learn more. Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: 1-877-515-1850 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] ORACLE CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- John Manganaro, writing for Plansponsor, reports that the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has issued summary judgement largely in favor of the defense in a long-running Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit targeting fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan offered to employees of the Oracle Corporation. The law firm of Schlichter, Bogard and Denton filed the proposed class action suit back in January 2016, claiming the Oracle Corporation breached ERISA in various ways through mismanagement of the 401(k) plan. As an example, the lawsuit claimed Oracle Corporation breached its fiduciary duties by causing participants to pay recordkeeping and administrative fees to Fidelity that were "multiples of the market rate available for the same services." The text of the complaint further suggested defendants "breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and engaged in transactions expressly prohibited by ERISA … by failing to act solely in the interest of plan participants and failing to adequately monitor the investment options in, and service providers to, the plan." The defendants were also accused of "preventing participants in the plan from discovering their breaches through a series of false and misleading communications to plan participants." In February 2018, the district court granted class certification. However, the federal judge on the case changed the class definition for certain imprudent investment claims because class representatives were not all invested in the funds challenged. Despite this setback for Oracle at the class certification stage, the new ruling pushes strongly against many of the plaintiffs' claims. Evidentiary Objections and Statute of Limitation Issues Before addressing the substance of plaintiffs' claims, the decision first addresses their objections to certain evidence submitted in support of the defense's summary judgment motion. The court also considers defendants' statute of limitations arguments. In both cases the defense gets the better of the ruling, though on the limitations issue plaintiffs are given a little breathing room. In their evidentiary challenge, the plaintiffs object to seven documents produced by defendants after discovery in this case closed on December 1, 2017. After some brief consideration, the judge rules there is no basis to exclude this evidence under Rule 37(c)(1), essentially because the defense produced the documents as soon as they were either created and feasibly available. The decision also points favorably to the defendants' quick supply of additional requested documents and information. "Plaintiffs objections based on hearsay and lack of foundation are wholly conclusory and completely undeveloped," the text of the ruling states. "I am neither required nor inclined to guess at the substance of such arguments. … Accordingly, I overrule plaintiffs' objections and will consider the documents if and where appropriate." The defense similarly succeeds with its statute of limitations arguments, with the judge ruling to limit claims across a variety of areas. "In certifying this matter as a class action, I defined all three subclasses to commence on January 1, 2009, noting it was premature to determine at that juncture whether plaintiffs could establish facts sufficient to toll limitations," the decision says. "I now find and conclude plaintiffs have failed to adduce sufficient evidence in that regard. Accordingly, any claim based on conduct occurring before January 22, 2010, is time-barred." Most ERISA Claims Fall Flat Turning to the substance of this case, the decision first considers the plaintiffs' claim that the Oracle fiduciary defendants failed to monitor the recordkeeping fees paid to Fidelity, resulting in the payment of excessive fees. "Plaintiffs maintain that allowing Fidelity to recoup recordkeeping fees based on a percentage of the plan's assets, rather than on a fixed per-participant amount, resulted in unwarranted and excessive increases to Fidelity's compensation as the plan grew in size, without a corresponding increase in the services rendered," the decision states. "I find these allegations untenable. The committee, together with representatives of Mercer and Fidelity and outside counsel, met at least quarterly. Mercer produces quarterly reports for the plan which, among other things, report the expense ratios for each fund in the plan and show the administrative fees paid, both in total and on a per-participant basis." Plaintiffs argue these actions were insufficient because there is, they claim, little evidence that the committee ever specifically considered the fees paid to Fidelity on a per-participant basis or requested Mercer perform an analysis of the reasonableness of Fidelity's recordkeeping fees on a per-participant basis. "Plaintiffs apparently divine this fact from the absence of a specific mention of these issues or documents in the minutes of the committee's meetings," the decision states. "However, they ignore testimony to the effect that such information, in fact, was reviewed at every quarterly meeting, with no expectation that such review necessarily would be reflected in the minutes. … Indeed, it appears abundantly clear the committee regularly did consider information regarding the plan's recordkeeping costs as a percentage of total costs, a figure which declined during every year of the class period." For similar reasons, plaintiffs' related assertion that the committee was imprudent in failing to negotiate Fidelity's fees did not survive summary judgment. "Plaintiffs' arguments regarding this aspect of their claim appear to be based on an amorphous, but artificially narrow conception of what 'negotiation' must look like," the decision states. "Whatever plaintiffs feel may have been lacking in the manner by which the plan secured price concessions from Fidelity related to the cost of its administrative services, the evidence nevertheless demonstrates the plan did receive significant concessions during the class period." The text of the opinion shows plaintiffs' evidence as to the purported unreasonableness of Fidelity's recordkeeping fees is premised on the expert opinion of Michael Geist, who generated a table of what he claimed to be reasonable per-participant recordkeeping fees for each year of the class period, to which he compared the fees paid by the plan. However, because Geist failed to disclose the methodology by which he derived these allegedly more reasonable recordkeeping fees, the court struck his opinion. "Plaintiffs thus have no evidence to suggest that defendants' alleged lack of prudence caused losses to the plan," the decision states. "Absent such proof, these aspects of plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim would fail even if the evidence substantiated an actual lack of prudence on defendants' part, which it does not." The plaintiffs' duty of prudence claims are similarly rejected. "Yet here again, assuming [for the sake of argument] Geist's opinion on this matter is sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to liability, without his further opinion that less costly alternatives were available, plaintiffs have no evidence that the plan could have paid less for recordkeeping services than it did, and therefore that it suffered compensable losses," the decision states. "Without such evidence of damages, this claim also must fail." The decision then moves on to consider duty of loyalty claims to the effect defendants breached this duty by allowing the plan to pay allegedly excessive recordkeeping fees in order to maintain a favorable business relationship with Fidelity, which was also a customer of Oracle. There are at least two problems with this argument, the decision says. First, "a conflict of interest is not a per se breach: nowhere in the statute does ERISA explicitly prohibit a trustee from holding positions of dual loyalties. Instead, in order to prove a violation of the duty of loyalty, the plaintiff must go further and show actual disloyal conduct." Here, the disloyal conduct plaintiffs claim is the committee's alleged failure to secure a lower recordkeeping fee for the plan. As noted, plaintiffs have failed to prove that such was the case. Second, "the evidence plaintiffs have adduced shows merely that members of Oracle's sales team and various of its senior management—none of whom were fiduciaries with respect to the plan or are named defendants in this lawsuit—discussing among themselves how to leverage Oracle's business relationship with Fidelity. The actions of such non-fiduciaries are irrelevant. The threshold question under ERISA is not whether the actions of some person employed to provide services under a plan adversely affected a plan beneficiary's interest, but whether that person was acting as a fiduciary (that is, performing a fiduciary function) when taking the action subject to complaint." The text of the ruling concludes by noting the several areas where plaintiffs' claims can proceed. "For the reasons set forth herein, I grant defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and deny it in part," the decision concludes. "Based on those rulings, I perceive the claims remaining for determination at trial are (1) the allegedly imprudent investment in the Artisan Fund (Count II); (2) the allegedly imprudent retention of the TCM Fund (Count II); (3) the alleged failure to monitor the breach of fiduciary duty in the retention of these two allegedly imprudent investments. All other claims in this suit will be dismissed with prejudice." [GN] ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit over Hamilton Merger Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. is facing a derivative and putative class action complaint filed by Paul Parshall in Maryland related to the Company's pending merger acquisition of Hamilton Bancorp, Inc., and its wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Hamilton Bank, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. In connection with the pending merger acquisition of Hamilton, on February 15, 2019, Orrstown filed with the SEC a proxy statement/prospectus dated February 8, 2019 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"). The Proxy Statement/Prospectus is the proxy statement for Hamilton's special meeting of stockholders (the "Special Meeting") to be held on March 20, 2019 to vote on the approval of the merger, and is also Orrstown's prospectus with respect to the shares of Orrstown's common stock to be issued to Hamilton stockholders in the merger. On March 5, 2019, Paul Parshall, a purported individual stockholder of Hamilton, filed, on behalf of himself and all of Hamilton's stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates (the "Purported Class"), a derivative and putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Paul Parshall v. Carol Coughlin et al., naming each Hamilton director, Orrstown and Hamilton as defendants (the "Action"). The Action alleges, among other things, that Hamilton's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Purported Class in connection with the merger, and that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus omitted certain material information regarding the merger. Orrstown is alleged to have aided and abetted the Hamilton directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Action seeks, among other remedies, to enjoin the merger or, in the event the merger is completed, rescission of the merger or rescissory damages; unspecified damages; and costs of the lawsuit, including attorneys' and experts' fees. Orrstown believes that the lawsuit is without merit as there are substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims asserted and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. The Company said that it is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the holding company for its wholly-owned subsidiaries Orrstown Bank and Wheatland Advisors, Inc. The Company's principal executive offices are located at 77 East King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 17257, with additional executive and administrative offices at 4750 Lindle Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17111. The Parent Company was organized on November 17, 1987, for the purpose of acquiring the Bank and such other banks and bank-related activities as are permitted by law and desirable. The Company provides banking and bank-related services through branches located in south central Pennsylvania, principally in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, and Perry Counties and in Washington County, Maryland. Wheatland was acquired in December 2016 and provides services as a registered investment advisor through its office in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Still Faces SEPTA Putative Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that it believes the allegations of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)'s second amended complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against those claims. On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012. Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order, SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013. Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to address discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013. On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013, all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013, SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014. The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss. On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended complaint. On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day. On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22, 2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the Court-ordered schedule. The February 25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. The allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC. As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part of the settlement of the SEC's administrative proceedings and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC. The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of US$1,000,000. The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder. On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's cease-and-desist order and briefly described what the Company believed were the most salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support dismissal of the second amended complaint. On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims against Quinn, Everly, and Embly. On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15, 2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018, and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day; expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019. On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged expert reports in opposition to and in support of class certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA's motion for class certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown Defendants' opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA's reply due April 23, 2018. On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and possible revisions to the case schedule. On February 12, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed their status report to provide the Court with a summary of document discovery in the case to date. On February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for a continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a status conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case schedule. On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order continuing all case management deadlines until further order of the Court. On March 27, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery issues and case deadlines. On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report. On May 10, 2018, the Court held a follow-up telephonic status conference at which the parties reported on the progress of discovery to date. On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the possession of Orrstown and third parties. On August 23, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed a response to the motion to compel. On August 30, 2018, the FRB filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the Action for the purpose of opposing SEPTA's motion to compel, and on September 27, 2018, the FRB filed its brief in opposition to SEPTA's motion. On October 11, 2018, SEPTA filed its reply brief in support of its motion to compel. On February 12, 2019, the Court denied SEPTA's motion to compel the production of CSI on the ground that SEPTA had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Party and non-party document discovery in the case continues. To date, SEPTA has taken two non-party depositions. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against those claims. It is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. The Company incurred indemnification costs totaling US$645,000 for the year ended December 31, 2017, with several professional service providers in connection with the SEPTA litigation. Indemnification costs incurred in 2018 were not material. These costs are included in legal fees in the consolidated statements of income. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the holding company for its wholly-owned subsidiaries Orrstown Bank and Wheatland Advisors, Inc. The Company's principal executive offices are located at 77 East King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 17257, with additional executive and administrative offices at 4750 Lindle Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17111. The Parent Company was organized on November 17, 1987, for the purpose of acquiring the Bank and such other banks and bank-related activities as are permitted by law and desirable. The Company provides banking and bank-related services through branches located in south central Pennsylvania, principally in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, and Perry Counties and in Washington County, Maryland. Wheatland was acquired in December 2016 and provides services as a registered investment advisor through its office in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Nallagonda Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- At a February 4, 2019 hearing, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland found the settlement of the "Nallagonda" suit to be fair, reasonable and adequate, and therefore dismissed the case with prejudice in its order of that date, Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. On November 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by a single plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, against the Company and three current or former executive officers of the Company. An amended complaint clarifying plaintiff's claims was filed on April 6, 2018. The action, captioned Kiran Kumar Nallagonda v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case 1:15-cv-03562 (the "Nallagonda Action"), alleged, among other things, that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements and material omissions in the Company's filings with the SEC in violation of the federal securities laws. The complaint sought certification as a class action, unspecified damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees. On March 21, 2016, the court entered an order appointing Dr. Raffy Mirzayan as lead plaintiff and the firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as lead counsel. On March 11, 2018, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Nallagonda Action. Subsequently, on June 5, 2018, the parties executed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in which the Company agreed in principle to pay US$18.5 million in cash to create a settlement fund for the benefit of class members. On June 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the parties' settlement. On September 4, 2018, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for February 4, 2019 to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and whether the case should therefore be dismissed with prejudice. On October 3, 2018, the Company deposited the US$18.5 million settlement payment into an escrow account, pending final Court approval of the settlement. On November 11, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses from the settlement fund. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. researches, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes regenerative medicine products in the United States. Its products include Grafix and Stravix for treating chronic wounds of diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, pressure ulcers, arterial ulcers, and severe burns, as well as surgical and trauma wounds; BIO4 for bone repair and regeneration in spine, trauma, extremity, cranial, and foot and ankle surgeries; and Cartiform for treating articular cartilage lesions in the knee and other joints. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Columbia, Maryland. OWENS CORNING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Gonzalez Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Gerald Boehm, Jaime Gonzalez, Diane Maag, Edward Maag, Kevin West and Patricia Wright filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit titled Jaime Gonzalez, et al. v. Owens Corning, et al., Case No. 2-13-cv-01378, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 12, 2019, Judge Joy Flowers Conti denied the Plaintiffs' motion for counsel fees. The sole issue remaining in these closed cases is the Plaintiffs' motion to be compensated for lifting the federal bankruptcy bar and voiding the bankruptcy injunction thereby creating a common benefit for millions of shingle owners. They filed a response in opposition, the Plaintiffs filed a reply brief and the motion is ripe for disposition. The Plaintiffs' attorneys ask the Court to exercise its discretion to award counsel fees in the case, even though a class was not certified. The Plaintiffs articulate three theories: (1) the common fund doctrine; (2) the common benefit doctrine; and (3) the catalyst theory and Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), fee shifting provision. The appellate case is captioned as Jaime Gonzalez, et al. v. Owens Corning, et al., Case No. 19-1538, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JAIME GONZALEZ, KEVIN WEST, GERALD BOEHM, EDWARD MAAG and DIANE MAAG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICIA WRIGHT are represented by: Brian F. Fox, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: bfox@lfsblaw.com cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Dana M. Isaac, Esq. Michael A. McShane, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 E-mail: disaac@audetlaw.com mmcshane@audetlaw.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com - and - Brendan S. Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: brendant@cuneolaw.com - and - Sam H. Lock, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SAM LOCK 1017 South Alamo Street San Antonio, TX 78210 Telephone: (210) 226-0965 E-mail: sam@locklawfirm.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com Defendants-Appellees OWENS CORNING and OWENS CORNING SALES LLC are represented by: Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq. Colleen M. Kenney, Esq. Kara L. McCall, Esq. Theodore R. Scarborough, Esq. Daniel A. Spira, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-0640 E-mail: echiarello@sidley.com ckenney@sidley.com kmccall@sidley.com tscarborough@sidley.com dspira@sidley.com - and - Tracy N. LeRoy, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 495-4510 E-mail: tleroy@sidley.com - and - Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq. DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC Three PPG Place, Suite 600 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 261-2172 E-mail: astroyd@dscslaw.com OWENS REALTY: Defending Against Suit over Ready Capital Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Owens Realty Mortgage, Inc. continues to face a purported class action lawsuit filed by Richard Scarantino, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. On November 7, 2018, ORM, Ready Capital Corporation, a Maryland corporation ("Ready Capital"), and ReadyCap Merger Sub, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ready Capital ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions therein, ORM will be merged with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving company (the "Merger"). A purported class action lawsuit has been filed by an individual who claims to be a stockholder of ORM. The lawsuit, Richard Scarantino v. Owens Realty Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on February 8, 2019. It names ORM, its directors and Ready Capital as defendants. The plaintiff alleges that the ORM directors breached their fiduciary duties because, according to the plaintiff, the consideration to be received by ORM's stockholders in the Merger "appears inadequate," some financial and other disclosures to ORM's stockholders regarding the Merger are deficient, and the terms of the Merger Agreement have precluded other bidders from making competing offers for ORM. The plaintiff seeks, among other things: injunctive relief preventing the defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Merger; rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated prior to entry of final judgment by the court; an accounting of any damages suffered as a result of the wrongdoing alleged; and litigation costs (including attorneys' and expert fees and expenses). The Company said, "We believe the claims asserted in the Scarantino Lawsuit are without merit." On March 12, 2019, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injuction seeking to prevent the March 21, 2019 meeting of the Company's stockholders to approve the merger from proceeding until further public disclosures about the transaction are filed by the Company. On March 29, 2019, ORM completed the Merger pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated March 29, 2019. On the Closing Date, ORM merged with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving company. The Articles of Merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement were filed with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation of Maryland, with an effective time and date of 8:30 a.m., Eastern Time, on the Closing Date (the "Effective Time"). Owens Realty Mortgage, Inc. is a specialty finance company that focuses on the origination, investment and management of commercial real estate loans, primarily in the Western U.S. The Company is headquartered in Walnut Creek, California. PINGTAN MARINE: Bid to Dismiss Zheng Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. is awaiting the Court's ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the purported securities class action styled, Zheng v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo and Roy Yu. According to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, the class action complaint was filed on June 23, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleged that the Company and the executive officers made materially false and misleading statements in filings with the SEC regarding the Company's business operations. The Complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Pingtan securities between August 8, 2016 and May 10, 2017 and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. An amended complaint, which expands the putative class period to March 9, 2016 through May 10, 2017, was filed on May 29, 2018 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Company has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and is currently waiting for the court to issue a decision on the motion. As of December 31, 2018, the management evaluates there is no impact on its consolidated financial statements. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. is a marine enterprise group primarily engaging in ocean fishing through ITS operating subsidiary, Fujian Provincial Pingtan County Ocean Fishing Group Co., Ltd., or Pingtan Fishing, which is organized in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). POLARITYTE INC: Utah Consolidated Securities Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 10-KT report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the transition period from November 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a consolidated securities class action pending before the U.S. District Court, District of Utah. On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP (the "Moreno Complaint). On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No. 2:18-cv-00541-PMW (the "Lawi Complaint"). Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the defendants made or were responsible for, disseminating information to the public through reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendants misrepresented the status of one of the Company's patent applications while touting the unique nature of the Company's technology and its effectiveness. Plaintiffs are seeking damages suffered by them and the class consisting of the persons who acquired the publicly-traded securities of the Company between March 31, 2017, and June 22, 2018. Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for appointment as lead plaintiff. On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the Moreno and Lawi cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Litigation"), and requested the appointment of the plaintiff in Lawi as the lead plaintiff. On January 16, 2019, the Court granted the motion of Yedid Lawi for appointment as lead plaintiff, and on February 1, 2019, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's motion for approval of lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court ordered that the lead plaintiff file and serve a consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after February 1, 2019, the defendants shall have 60 days after filing and service of the consolidated complaint to answer or otherwise respond, and the lead plaintiff must file a motion for class certification that within 90 days of service of the consolidated complaint. The Company believes the allegations in the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint are without merit, and intends to defend the litigation, vigorously. PolarityTE said, "The Company expects its first response will be to file a motion to dismiss after the lead plaintiff files and serves the consolidated complaint. At this early stage of the proceedings the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation." PolarityTE, Inc., a translational regenerative medicine company, develops functionally polarized human tissues to improve clinical medicine and biomedical research. PolarityTE, Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. As of April 5, 2017, PolarityTE, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of PolarityTE, Inc. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Combs Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN DAMON COMBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC; HUNT & HENRIQUES; MICHAEL SCOTT HUNT; and JANALIE ANN HENRIQUES, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01118-NC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves customers through account representatives. The company was incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred W. Schwinn, Esq. Matthew C Salmonsen, Esq. Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Esq CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104 San Jose, CA 95112-4610 Telephone: (408) 294-6100 Facsimile: (408) 294-6190 E-mail: fred.shwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com PRECISION DRILLING: Dyck Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Dyck, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Precision Drilling Company, LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01090 (S.D. Tex., March 22, 2019) is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime and other damages owed to him and other workers like him. The complaint asserts that the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Instead, Precision paid Dyck, and other Rig Managers like him, a set amount for each day (or half-day) worked, with no overtime pay if he worked more than 40 in a workweek, adds the complaint. Dyck is a Rig Manager employed by Precision and has worked for Precision since 2008. Precision is a subsidiary of Precision Drilling Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone 713-352-1100 Facsimile 713-352-3300 Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com PROTHENA CORP: Still Defends Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- Prothena Corporation plc continues to face securities litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2018. On July 16, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Granite Point Capital v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al., Civil Action No. 18-cv-06425, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's ordinary shares between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, inclusive. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements and in the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission during the putative class period, regarding the clinical trial results and prospects for approval of the Company's NEOD001 drug development program. On October 31, 2018, the Court issued an order naming Granite Point Capital and Simon James, an individual, as the lead plaintiffs in the purported class action, which is now entitled In re Prothena Corporation plc Securities Litigation. Prothena Corporation plc, a late-stage clinical biotechnology company, focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel immunotherapies for the treatment of diseases in the neuroscience and orphan categories. Prothena Corporation plc was incorporated in 2012 and is headquartered in Dun Laoghaire, Ireland. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jury Rules Firm's Actions Hurt Investors ------------------------------------------------------------ James Comtois, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that a jury in federal court in California ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Puma Biotechnology and its former CEO, Alan H. Auerbach, alleging that the company made false or misleading statements leading to the artificial inflation of its stock price, according to documents filed in federal court. The complaint filed by plaintiffs, which include the £3 billion ($3.9 billion) Norfolk Pension Fund, Norwich, England, alleged that Puma, a Los Angeles-based biopharmaceutical firm, "made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, prospects and performance" while promoting the development of a drug designed to treat breast cancer. Plaintiffs bought shares in Puma Biotechnology at allegedly artificially inflated prices. But when the company abruptly changed its timeline and other actions regarding the drug, its stock price dropped dramatically. "As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages," the complaint alleged. Paul Davies, Esq. -- paul.davies@lw.com -- a partner in law firm Latham & Watkins, which represented the defendants, couldn't immediately be reached for comment.[GN] PURE DEBT SOLUTIONS: Faces Boehm Suit over Unauthorized Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has filed against Pure Debt Solutions Corporation for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned ANDREW BOEHM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURE DEBT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION., a Wyoming corporation, GUSTAV RENNY, an individual, and WILLIAM THOMAS FINNERAN, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00117 (D. Neb., March 20, 2019). Plaintiff Andrew Boehm brings this class action complaint and demands jury trial against Defendant Pure Debt Solutions Corporation, Defendant Gustav Renny and Defendant William Thomas Finneran to stop their illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that play prerecorded voice messages to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. Defendant Pure Debt Solutions Corporation is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wyoming with its principal place of business at 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 200, in West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. Pure Debt Solutions Corporation is a full-service debt settlement company that strives to help its clients overcome their debt at a fast rate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. 210 S Ellsworth Ave #486 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: 402-301-5544 Facsimile: 402-396-7131 E-mail: javitchm@gmail.com REC BOAT HOLDINGS: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rec Boat Holdings, LLC d/b/a Four Winns. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Rec Boat Holdings, LLC d/b/a Four Winns, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02628 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. REC Boat Holdings LLC builds and sells boats. The Company is located in Cadillac, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces CIS Communications Suit in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic Services, Inc. The case is captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; and ALLIED SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00389-JAR (E.D. Mo., March 1, 2019). The case is assigned to District Judge John A. Ross. Republic Services, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, recycling, disposal, and energy services for small-container, large-container, municipal and residential, and energy services customers in the United States and Puerto Rico. The company’s collection services include curbside collection of waste for transport to transfer stations, landfills, or recycling processing centers; supply of waste containers; and renting of compactors. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel Richard Carroll, Esq. KEANE LAW LLC 7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 391-4700 E-mail: nathaniel@keanelawllc.com - and - Michael C. Seamands, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC 1401 S. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 825 St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 960-0272 Facsimile: (314) 260-9645 E-mail: mcs@mcs-legal.com RICO'S CHICKEN: Buitrago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Leidy Buitrago, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. RICO'S CHICKEN CORP., d/b/a RICO'S CHICKEN, RICO'S CHICKEN POLLOS A LA BRASA CORP., d/b/a RICO'S CHICKEN, and MILTON RICO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01659 (E.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The complaint says the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the New York State minimum wage, and the proper overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members. The Defendants were not entitled to claim any tip credits under the NYLL, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a server until February 2019. Defendants operate two restaurants in Queens, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 ROYAL SEAS: Made Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Bell Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60752 (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2019) seeks to stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an "artificial or prerecorded voice" to telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent. The Defendant conducted (and continue to conduct) a wide-scale telemarketing campaign that features the repeated making of unsolicited pre-recorded voice message phone calls to consumers' phones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Defendant also made repeated calls to numbers listed on the National Do No Call Registry and to the persons who have asked the Defendants to stop calling, says the complaint. Plaintiff Brenda Bell is a natural person and resident of Springfield, Clark Country, Ohio. Royal Seas is a travel company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida that offers cruise vacations to The Bahamas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan S. Shipp, Esq. Law Office of Ryan S. Shipp, PLLC 814 W. Lantana Rd., Suite 1 Lantana, FL 33462 Phone: (561) 699-0399 Email: Ryan@shipplawoffice.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Woodrow & Peluso, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: 720-213-0675 Fax: 303-927-0809 Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com SAM'S WEST: Sued by Lockwood Over False Ad for Gift Cards --------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN LOCKWOOD, individually and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated v. SAM'S WEST, INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-00464 (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendants' alleged practice of falsely advertising and selling gift cards ("the Class Products") for which the Company charges consumers money but fails to properly load them and then fails to refund the money taken. The Company prominently advertised to consumers in stores that it sold gift cards, which could be purchased and loaded up at its stores, the Plaintiff says. He alleges that he attempted to purchase the Class Products again and was charged again, but the Class Products were not properly credited. He asserts that he left the store with no Class Products in his possession after having paid in excess of $700. Sam's West, Inc., is an Arkansas corporation that does business in California, including in Los Angeles County, that is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters in Arkansas. Sam's West, Inc., doing business as Sam's Club, operates as a retailer and a membership warehouse club that provides products to members in the United States and Puerto Rico. The Company offers electronics, furniture, auto products and tires, jewelry, flowers and gifts, toys and video games, apparel and shoes, appliances, books, cigarettes and tobacco products, among other goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Parmelee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., the court has previously granted preliminary approval of a US$9.5 million settlement in September 2018, according to Santander Holdings USA, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in two purported securities class action lawsuits filed in March and April 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. The lawsuits were consolidated and are now captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783. The lawsuits were filed against SC and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The complaint alleges that SC violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and certain other public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, SC's change in its methodology for estimating its ACL and the correction of such ACL for prior periods. In January 2018, the court granted SC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit as to defendant Ismail Dawood (SC's former Chief Financial Officer) and denied the motion as to all other defendants. In July 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit for a cash payment of US$9.5 million. In September 2018, the court entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement of the lawsuit. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Holdings USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the merits discovery in the lawsuit styled Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al. remains stayed until the court rules on the issue of class certification. Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought against SC, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the IPO, including SIS, on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and oversight. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes. In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017). In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka Lawsuit but ordered that merits discovery be stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Suit in Puerto Rico ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Holdings USA, Inc. remains a defendant a putative class action in Puerto Rico alleging federal securities and common law claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. Other defendants include: * SSLLC: Santander Securities LLC, * Santander BanCorp: Santander BanCorp and its subsidiaries, * BSPR: Banco Santander Puerto Rico, and * Santander: Banco Santander, S.A. The claims relate to the solicitation and purchase of more than US$180 million of Puerto Rico bonds and US$101 million of CEFs during the period from December 2012 to October 2013. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243. The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Suit over Mexican Government Bonds Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint remains pending, according to Santander Holdings USA, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. A consolidated purported antitrust class action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-02830-JPO (the "MGB Lawsuit"). The MGB Lawsuit is against the Company, SIS, Santander, Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A. Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero Santander and Santander Investment Bolsa, Sociedad de Valores, S.A. on behalf of a class of persons who entered into Mexican government bond ("MGB") transactions between January 1, 2006 and April 19, 2017, where such persons were either domiciled in the United States or, if domiciled outside the United States, transacted in the United States. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Santander defendants and the other defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring to rig auctions and/or fix prices of MGBs. On September 17, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SARIANA LLC: Violates ADA, Dennis Suit Asserts ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sariana LLC. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Sariana LLC doing business as: Satechi, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01709 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Satechi offers audio devices, remotes, smartphone accessories, office accessories, computer accessories, and camera equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Does Not Pay Min. & OT Wages, Cano Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Justo Cano, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a LAZZARA'S PIZZA CAFE & RESTAURANT, SEBASTIAN LAZZARA, and ANTHONY LAZZARA, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02595 (E.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages, including those resulting from Defendants' unlawful deduction of a tip credit, compensation for unpaid off-the-clock work, including unpaid overtime premium, due to time shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Plaintiff worked a total of more than 40 hours each workweek. However, Defendants never paid him overtime premium for those hours he worked in excess of 40 each workweek, due to a policy of time shaving. Similarly, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were not paid their overtime premium for hours that they worked in excess of 40 each workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a delivery worker for Defendant's Pizzeria in or around January 2008. SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a LAZZARA'S PIZZA CAFE & RESTAURANT, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 SEVEN SPORTS: Hopkins Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE HOPKINS and JANEE SELLERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. SEVEN SPORTS BAR & LOUNGE, LLC and EARNEST EARVIN, III, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:19-cv-01177-LMM (N.D. Ga., March 13, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and supporting regulations. Seven Sports Bar is an active Georgia corporation with its principal place of business located in in Stockbridge, Georgia. The Individual Defendant is an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent of Seven Sports Bar. The Defendants operate a restaurant called Seven Sports Bar & Lounge based out of Stockbridge, Georgia. The Defendants have been in the restaurant industry, specializing in bar/lounge food, and also selling alcoholic beverages, such as beer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 330-2909 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com SITESOL: Palmerin Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX PALMERIN v. SITESOL, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-00458 (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid compensation under Fair Labor Standards Act and to represent the interests of other current and former similarly situated aggrieved employees. Sitesol is a business entity incorporated in the state of California, with its principal place of business in the City of Riverside, California. Sitesol is a general contractor for various construction projects all throughout Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Babak Semnar, Esq. Jared M. Hartman, Esq. Laurel N. Holmes, Esq. SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP 41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201 Temecula, CA 92590 Telephone: (951) 293-4187 Facsimile: (888) 819-8230 E-mail: bob@semnarlawfirm.com jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com laurel@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com SPIGEN INC: Dennis Suit Asserts ADA Violation --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spigen, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Spigen, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01711 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Spigen Inc, commonly known as Spigen, is a popular mobile phone accessory maker based in the United States that makes cases, screen protectors and other accessories for popular smartphone models.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com SPLIT ROCK: Accused by Indiviglio Class Suit of Violating FACTA --------------------------------------------------------------- DEENA INDIVIGLIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SPLIT ROCK RESORT, LLC; STABILIS SPLIT ROCK JV, LLC; VACATION CHARTERS, LTD.; HIGHGATE HOTELS, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-00448-RDM (M.D. Pa., March 13, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and failing to protect Plaintiff and others against identity theft and credit and debit card fraud by printing more than the last five digits of the card number on receipts provided to credit card and/or debit card cardholders transacting business with the Defendants. Split Rock Resort, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. Stabilis Split Rock JV, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Vacation Charters, Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. Highgate Hotels, L.P., is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. The Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Defendants, which operate resorts, used all or part of the phrase "Split Rock Resort" as a fictitious name, and each of them were the agents, employees, joint venturer, and or partners of each other and were acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venturer and or partnership relationship and or each of the Defendants ratified and or authorized the conduct of each of the other Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark G. Wendaur, IV, Esq. WENDAUR LAW LLC 104 Walnut St. Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 461-3349 Facsimile: (717) 828-1607 E-mail: mwendaur@wendaur.com - and - Jesse Klaproth, Esq. KLAPROTH LAW PLLC 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 644-7463 Facsimile: (202) 618-4636 E-mail: jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com - and - Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1010 N. Central Ave. Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (877) 574-7100 Facsimile: (877) 574-9411 E-mail: chant@chant.mobi SPROUT FARMERS: May 31 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.: CV2016-050480 Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Complex case) (Assigned to the Hon. Roger Brodman) TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC. ("SPROUTS" OR THE "COMPANY") IN OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING OF 15,847,800 SHARES THAT OCCURRED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 5, 2015, AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY ("SETTLEMENT CLASS"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, that Lead Plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, and Sprouts, J. Douglas Sanders, Amin N. Maredia, Donna Berlinski, Andrew S. Jhawar, Shon Boney, Joseph Fortunato, Lawrence P. Molloy, and Steven H. Townshend, AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC, and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P., Barclays Capital Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $9,500,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Roger Brodman of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, East Court Building, Fourth Floor, 101 W. Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona, 85003, Courtroom 413, at 9:00 a.m. on May 31, 2019 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 27, 2018; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the Settlement, www.SproutsSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Sprouts Farmers Market Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170600 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (866) 963-9981 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: James W. Johnson, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or received no later than June 25, 2019. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than May 10, 2019. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than May 10, 2019. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: March 11, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, MARICOPA COUNTY [GN] STEADFAST INCOME: Records $305,000 as Reimbursement at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Steadfast Income REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Company had recorded US$305,000 as reimbursement for funds it spent in excess of its proportionate share in connection with the settlement agreement in two Texas class actions. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Property Manager were named as defendants in two Texas class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Texas Water Code (collectively, the "Actions"). The Company's subsidiaries and the Property Manager disputed plaintiffs' claims in the Actions; however, to avoid the time and expense associated with defending the Actions, the Company's subsidiaries and other affiliated Steadfast entities (collectively, the "Steadfast Parties") entered into Settlement Agreements with the plaintiffs that provided for a settlement payment to the class members and a release of claims by plaintiffs and class members against the Steadfast Parties. In connection with the settlement agreements, on April 17, 2017, the Steadfast Parties entered into a contribution, settlement and release agreement whereby all agreed to an allocation of all costs related to the actions and their settlements and a release of all claims a Steadfast Party may have against any other Steadfast Party. The Company's proportionate share of the settlements was US$378,405, which consisted of funds used to pay a portion of (1) the settlement payments to the plaintiffs and class members in the actions and (2) legal costs, less insurance proceeds. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company had recorded US$305,000 as reimbursement for funds spent by the Company in excess of its proportionate share, all of which was collected from other Steadfast Parties as of December 31, 2018. Steadfast Income REIT, Inc. was formed on May 4, 2009, as a Maryland corporation that has elected to be treated as, and currently qualifies as, a real estate investment trust, or REIT. The company had invested in and manages a diverse portfolio of real estate investments, primarily in the multifamily sector, located throughout the United States. STEWART BUILDERS: Sheffield Seeks OT Wages for Pump Operators ------------------------------------------------------------- LOUIS SHEFFIELD, Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STEWART BUILDERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01030 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and other Pump Operators lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is a collective action brought by Louis Sheffield, both individually and on behalf of all other Pump Operators employed by Defendant at any time within the three-year period preceding filing of this Complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Pump Operator from July of 2017 until January of 2019, when he was promoted to Pump Supervisor. The Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in March of 2019. The Plaintiff was classified by Defendant as exempt from overtime wages and paid a salary and bonuses, the lawsuit says. The Defendant is a commercial concrete construction company operating in Texas.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SUNNY DELIGHT: Wins SunnyD Mislabeling Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------ Brad Avery, writing for BevNET.com, reports that Sunny Delight Beverages Co. was awarded $88,383 for legal fees after winning a class action lawsuit that claimed that labelling for the brand's fruit-flavored drinks did not clearly indicate the products were artificially flavored. The lawsuit, Michelle Hunt et al. v. Sunny Delight Beverages Co. et al., filed last April in the United States District Court Central District of California, specifically cited the company's SunnyD Orange Strawberry and Orange Pineapple flavors for using images of fresh fruit on its labels but failing to disclose that the drinks were made with artificial flavors and other ingredients. In her ruling, judge Josephine Staton enumerated multiple inaccuracies in Hunt's accusations against Sunny Delight. The original complaint featured mockup images made by the company of its multi-serve products without disclaimer text on the labels, which according to the company were intended only for online marketing purposes and did not represent the actual product on shelf. Sunny Delight was represented by law firm Braunhagey & Borden, which specializes in class action defense for corporations. Speaking with BevNET today, partner and co-founder Matthew Borden said that due to the mistakes in the complaint the case was fairly easy to argue. "What I did was I brought an actual bottle of it into court and I showed the judge," Borden told BevNET. "I said 'I just bought this last night after I got off the airplane. Here's the actual label, there's no way these people were deceived.'" According to Borden, the plaintiffs refiled their complaint after the initial complaint was struck, but it once again included misleading photos of the bottles. "I'm a person who takes what I eat and drink seriously, and I think we should have accurate labels, but none of these cases are really about the labelling," Borden said of the suit and similar class action cases. "It's just about some kind of 'gotcha' to make a company pay money."[GN] SUNTRUST BANK: Class Action Over Exorbitant Overdraft Fees Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katheryn Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the Georgia Court of Appeals has upheld the certification of a class action lawsuit against SunTrust Bank alleging as many as 400,000 customers have been charged exorbitant overdraft fees. Named plaintiff Jeff Bickerstaff Jr. filed the lawsuit in July 2010 challenging the bank's overdraft fees as excessive. Bickerstaff said SunTrust charged $36 when customers overdrew their accounts, even by small amounts, with debit card payments. The complaint claims the fees amount to interest rates as high as 1,000 percent and violate the state's banking and finance laws. Bickerstaff alleged that approximately 400,000 Georgians had been overcharged in the same way and were "well suited for class treatment." "SunTrust argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding the class-action waiver unconscionable, and (2) granting class certification," Judge Elizabeth Gobeil wrote in an opinion released on March 6. "We affirm." Gobeil was joined by Judges Brian Rickman and Chris Coomer. The decision upholds Fulton County State Court Judge Susan Edlein in the certification of the class. It's the third round of appeals for the case, which could potentially cost SunTrust tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. The bank lost an attempt to have the case dismissed after Bickerstaff died in 2015. But his mother and executor, Ellen Bickerstaff, took his place as named plaintiff. The bank also lost an appeal at the Georgia Supreme Court seeking to block the lawsuit by enforcing an arbitration agreement. The case has drawn attention from legal scholars, who argue in support of the class, as well as banking and business interests on the other side. In briefs and during oral arguments in the previous round at the high court, attorneys told the justices their ruling could either kill class action or contract law in the state. Michael Terry -- terry@bmelaw.com -- of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore argued the case for Bickerstaff. "We are pleased that the court was so careful and attentive to this important case for Georgia consumers," Terry said on March 7. "It has been nine years since we filed this case. It's long past time for a trial." William Withrow Jr. -- bill.withrow@troutman.com -- of Troutman Sanders represented SunTrust. Through a spokesman, SunTrust declined to comment. "Like many banking institutions, SunTrust provides an automated overdraft program that allows an account holder's ATM or debit card transaction to be approved even if the approved amount exceeds the account holder's available balance. In other words, the customer has insufficient funds to cover the transaction and SunTrust advances the customer the necessary funds to cover the transaction, but, in return, charges the customer a flat fee per overdraft transaction. During the relevant time period, SunTrust charged a flat overdraft fee of $32 or $36 per overdraft transaction," Gobeil said. "In the complaint, Bickerstaff alleged that, on multiple occasions, SunTrust 'advance[d] money to Plaintiff in amounts less than $3,000 and collected Overdraft Fees from Plaintiff in connection with each such advance.' He maintained that SunTrust's overdraft fees in fact constitute interest charged by SunTrust for the use of the money SunTrust advanced/loaned account holders to cover overdrafts on their accounts, and that the rate of interest grossly exceeded the rate allowed under Georgia's usury laws," Gobeil said. The case is SunTrust v. Bickerstaff, No. A18A1519. [GN] SURE CHECK: Kind Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned JACKSON KIND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Sure Check Brokerage, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1916-CV01187 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on March 21, 2019, and assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00217-SRB. The Plaintiff in this lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq. Kersten L. Holzhueter, Esq. 1000 Walnut, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 474-8100 Facsimile: (816) 474-3216 Email: jdickinson@spencerfane.com kholzhueter@spencerfane.com SURGERY PARTNERS: Derivative Claims Remain in Klein v. HIG Capital ------------------------------------------------------------------ Surgery Partners, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that all of the plaintiff's remaining claims in the Delaware action styled Klein v. H.I.G. Capital, L.L.C., et al. are asserted derivatively on the Company's behalf. In a December 2018 order, the Court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that were asserted on behalf of a putative class of Company stockholders. On December 4, 2017, a purported Company stockholder filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Action"). That action is captioned Klein v. H.I.G. Capital, L.L.C., et al., C.A. No. 2017-0862. The plaintiff in the Delaware Action asserted claims against (i) certain current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors (together, the "Directors"); (ii) H.I.G. Capital, LLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "H.I.G."); and (iii) Bain Capital Private Equity, L.P. and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "Bain Capital" and, together with the Directors and H.I.G., the "Defendants"). The plaintiff asserted derivative claims on behalf of the Company, which is a nominal defendant in the Delaware Action, as well as putatively direct claims on behalf of a purported class of Company stockholders. The plaintiff in the Delaware Action asserted that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Transactions, and that, in the alternative, Bain Capital aided and abetted those purported breaches. The plaintiff also asserted an unjust enrichment claim against Bain Capital. On January 2, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. On December 19, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued a decision on that motion. Following that decision, all of the Directors have been dismissed from the Delaware Action. The Court did not dismiss the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim against H.I.G. or the aiding and abetting claim asserted against Bain Capital. However, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against Bain Capital. In addition, the Court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that were asserted on behalf of a putative class of Company stockholders. Accordingly, all of the plaintiff's remaining claims in the Delaware Action are asserted derivatively on the Company's behalf. Surgery Partners, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates surgical facilities in the United States. The company operates through three segments: Surgical Facility Services, Ancillary Services, and Optical Services. Surgery Partners, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss Amended NJ Complaint Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion to dismiss a second consolidated amended complaint in class action before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey remains pending. On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Securities Law Action"). After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017. On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Before that motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between October 28, 2014 and June 13, 2017. The second consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements of material information concerning the Company's financial results, business operations, and prospects. Defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint is pending before the Court. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. Synchronoss said, "The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit, and the Company intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position or results of operations of the Company." Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging, and Internet of things platforms, products, and solutions worldwide. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. TAPESTRY INC: Amaro Seeks Redress for Unauthorized Calls -------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Tapestry, Inc. for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned MARIA ISABEL AMARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TAPESTRY, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21070-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2019). Plaintiff Maria Isabel Amaro seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Tapestry, Inc. is an American multinational luxury fashion holding company. To promote its services, Tapestry engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Its principal office is located at 10 Hudson Yards, New York, NY 10001. Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the State of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com TGHI INC: Faces Dennis Suit Alleging ADA Breach ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TGHI, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. TGHI, Inc. doing business as: Targus, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01707 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. TGHI, Inc. provides carrying cases and accessories for tablets, smartphones, laptops, notebooks, and other mobile devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com THULE INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Dennis Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thule, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff v. Thule, Inc. doing business as: Case Logic, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01708 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thule, Inc. designs and manufactures automotive and sporting goods accessories in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com TOP TIER SAFETY: Edwards Suit Asserts FLSA Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Derlesher Edwards and Jennifer Leavell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOP TIER SAFETY INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02008 (N.D. Ill., March 22, 2019) is a Complaint challenging the systemic illegal employment practices of the Defendant which resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance ("CMWO"). The Defendant acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard of the rights of its employees in, among other things, failing to pay all regular and overtime wages due, failing to pay wages in a timely fashion, and failing to keep accurate payroll records, says the complaint. Plaintiffs became employed by, and began working for, Defendant as Security Officers during or about August of 2017. Defendant is a corporation of the State of Illinois, which operates a private investigation, security guard, and security consulting service throughout the Greater Chicago area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (224) 218-0882 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com TREASURE BAY: Shortchanges Casino Dealers' Wages, Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Collins, Judy Fleming, Julian Glen Cook, Darlene Ransom, Saundra McKeown, Kim Walston and Kim O'Brien, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Treasure Bay LLC and Does 1 through 25, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00051 (S.D. Miss., February 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, disgorgement of funds unjustly obtained, litigation costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant utilizes a computerized time-keeping system that rounds employees' time to 30-minute intervals that often results in shorting the employee of an average of 14 minutes of pay, notes the complaint. Plaintiffs worked for Treasure Bay as casino dealers. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Mestayer, Esq. James R. Reeves, Esq. REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC 160 Main Street Biloxi, MS 39530 Telephone: (228) 374-5151 Facsimile: (228) 374-6630 Email: mgm@rmlawcall.com jrr@rmlawcall.com TRINITY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parra Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK ANTHONY PARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CECG00765 (Cal. Super, Fresno Cty., Feb. 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Parra was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid employee. Trinity Services Group, Inc. provides contracted food service to the corrections industry in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It engages in the management and delivery of customized food service programs for inmates and staff of secure facilities. The company also provides commissary services, inmate training programs, and laundry services. Trinity Services Group, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Oldsmar, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liane Katzenstein Ly., Esq. Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Lyubov Lerner, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: liane@kingsleykingsley.com eric@kingsleykingsley.com luba@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd, Suite 130 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Facsimile: (818) 722-3974 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com TRIUMPH HOSPITALITY: Faces Lopez ADA Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triumph Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Triumph Hospitality, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02670 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. owns, manages, franchises, and leases hotels. Triumph group of management is operates in the hospitality industry as a hotel ownership, development, and management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com U.S. SOCCER: Moves to Transfer Unequal Pay Case to Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that a gender discrimination class action against the U.S. Soccer Federation kicks to the courts a long-simmering conflict over pay disparities in the professional sport, just as a venue fight flares in a related case. The class action, filed three months before the FIFA Women's World Cup, alleges that the U.S. Soccer Federation pays members of the U.S. Women's National Team less than their male counterparts. The lawsuit was filed March 8 by 28 team members under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act, which requires class members to opt into the case, brought on behalf of current and former team members starting in 2015. The case caps a lengthy feud between the U.S. Soccer Federation and the women's soccer team, winner of the Women's World Cup in 2015 and ranked No. 1 in the world. On Aug. 24, former goalkeeper Hope Solo filed her own suit against the U.S. Soccer Federation for the same claims. "The women, starting in 2004, have always asked for equal pay," said Solo's attorney, Richard Nichols, who was executive director and general counsel of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team Players Association, which negotiates for the team's collective bargaining agreement, in 2015 and 2016. "U.S. Soccer has said no." Solo and four other players filed a discrimination charge in 2016 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The class action includes the other four women, who received notices of right to sue from the EEOC in February. The suit, filed by Jeffrey Kessler, the same attorney who represented the women in the EEOC charge, comes as the U.S. Soccer Federation has moved to transfer Solo's case from California to Illinois, where its headquarters are in Chicago. A federal judge in San Francisco heard arguments on that motion in February. Nichols, a solo practitioner in Novato, California, said he did not want his case in Illinois, where the U.S. Soccer Federation won a declaratory judgment against the women's players union in 2016 when the team threatened to go on strike just before the Olympics. "Given that experience," he said, "I would feel a lot better if this case was not adjudicated in Chicago." He conceded that the U.S. Soccer Federation's connections in California are mostly in Los Angeles, home to its national training camp. Los Angeles also is where attorney Kessler filed the class action. On March 8, Kessler, co-executive chairman of Winston & Strawn in New York, brought a motion to coordinate his case with Solo's lawsuit into a multidistrict litigation proceeding in Los Angeles, citing a "strong nexus" to the case. Solo's case provides a glimpse into the U.S. Soccer Federation's possible legal defenses in the class action. In a Dec. 31 motion to dismiss Solo's case, the federation argued that compensation to players of the two teams were different: women receive a salary, while men's payments are per game. And each operated under separate collective bargaining agreements. The Equal Pay Act applies to discrimination against women who work at the same "establishment" as men in jobs involving "substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility." "This is not a case where employees are working side-by-side, doing the exact same job, but getting paid differently for the same work," wrote Ellen McLaughlin, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, who heads an all-women's legal team for the federation in the case. "Rather, this case takes two entirely different categories of professional athletes—athletes who play for different teams, have different obligations, are compensated in fundamentally different ways, and enjoy different benefits—and asks the court to conclude that they are suitable comparators for each other under the EPA." McLaughlin did not respond to a request for comment. Nichols called that a "ridiculous argument." "U.S. Soccer is the single employer of the men's and women's teams," he said. "The men and women do the same job under similar circumstances in similar venues under the same rules and regulations depicted by their employer, U.S. Soccer. There are no two separate establishments." As to the salary difference, he said, women had argued before for a pay-to-play system like that of male players, who get between $5,000 to $17,625 per game, but the federation wouldn't guarantee a number of games each year. "Women needed to make sure they needed to make some money playing for the United States, and the only way to do that, for a guaranteed income, was to have a salary," he said. [GN] U.S. SOOCER: Team Coach Supports Women Players' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Pardeep Cattry, writing for Pro Soccer USA, reports that United States women's national team coach Jill Ellis voiced her support of the players' recently-filed federal class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation "Obviously, I work for the federation. I think they've done amazing things in terms of promoting, developing and evolving the women's game, so there's a lot of positives. I'm also a woman and I also recognize moments where we have to continue to push the envelope," Ellis said on March 9 at the SheBelieves summit at Nike's New York headquarters, a day-long event featuring sessions with notable women, who share personal and professional insights. "I think it's not hard to navigate because I'm in that world, and my players, they know I support them." In addition to inviting women who are leaders in various industries to speak to college students, the event hosted past and present members of the U.S. women's national team, including Ellis, defender Crystal Dunn and former players and current Fox analysts Aly Wagner and Leslie Osborne. Topics of discussion varied from the lawsuit to being women in a male-dominated sports world and the upcoming Women's World Cup. Osborne and Wagner joined Ellis in support of the players' lawsuit seeking equal pay from the federation and an end to years of alleged gender-based discrimination. Osborne told Pro Soccer USA she believes the federation is in a tough position because of the timing and the publicity of the lawsuit. "A lot of teams, a lot of women in the workplace, everyone's watching and they're using this leverage and platform that they have to change something," Osborne said. "What I think is just the best part about is that they're staying together. They're unified as a team and I think that unity is going to carry them." The U.S. women's national team's influence and relevance in American sports, particularly in a World Cup year, is hardly up for debate. Even before the lawsuit, the members of the team had been labeled as role models for young women across the globe. Wagner thinks that tag suits the players currently on the team. "I like the idea that women that have worked hard toward something, that have put in sacrifice to get to where they are, are role models," Wagner said. "Everyone's going to have a unique role model that they're going to gravitate toward, and that's why it's really cool with a team . . . there's a bunch of different personalities that people can look up to. At the end of the day, those players have to embrace that status, and I think they do, and I think that's one of the reasons that our nation falls in love with these players." Dunn did not grant interviews during the event, but spoke during the "Breaking Barriers: Leaders in Sport" panel moderated by Wagner. Dunn, who is on the most recent U.S. roster and plays for the North Carolina Courage in the National Women's Soccer League, talked about having few players of color to look up to on the national team growing up and about the growing diversity of the team in recent years. "The thing about sports is that it almost puts you in a position to come across so many different people of different walks of life," Dunn said. "I come across a ton of women around the world [in] training, and it's becoming a way more diverse group. . . . It is difficult when you only see the same types of people and things like that, but when everyone comes together and from so many different walks of life -- so many different shades, colors, everything -- in the conversation, that's what the norm becomes." Dunn is likely to make her first World Cup roster after being one of the final players cut from the 2015 roster. Wagner asked her about the snub, winning the 2015 NWSL golden boot award and the trip to the Olympics that followed. Dunn called the experience "a reality check." "As women, we all just come into the world feeling like we just have to do so much extra that men don't have to think about or anything like that," Dunn said. "It's also built in us to be so hard on ourselves, and I think four years ago I was so hard on myself. "I actually went on to have my most successful career years, and I think that's a prime example of turning a not-so-great situation into something that's incredibly amazing." While Dunn and Ellis are focused on preparing to defend the team's World Cup title in a few months, Wagner and Osborne are preparing to broadcast the tournament to the American audience. Brushing up on the tournament's other 23 teams is part of that process, as is keeping eyes on who might eventually lift the trophy in less than four months in France. "I just think that this is going to be a very exciting, but I think this one's open," Osborne said. "I think there could be six teams that could possibly win it, which I don't know if I ever went into a World Cup and thought that before." In addition to the reigning champion USWNT, both mentioned host France as a possible winner, though Osborne is not convinced of the team's ability to handle the pressure. Wagner also pointed to England's recent victory at the SheBelieves Cup -- the U.S. placed second in the four-team international tournament held in the weeks leading to the summit -- as a sign the Lionesses could win the World Cup. Wagner then called Osborne's choice "safe," and the two eventually agreeing the U.S. will be the world champion once again. "I just don't put anything past the U.S.," Osborne said. "We've got the talent. We have the depth. You've got the attacking player. We just have players that can step up. I just don't know if all those pieces are going to fall in at the right time like it did last World Cup." [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stellenbosch Lecturer Comments on Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eyewitness News reports that Theo Broodryk, senior lecturer and manager of the law clinic at Stellenbosch University, says most don't progress far. Theo Broodryk, senior lecturer and manager of the law clinic at Stellenbosch University, says most don't progress far. Mr. Boodryk's commenting on a class action brought against Uber by eleven people. They're to approach a court to pursue damages against the ride-hailing company. This follows several incidents. "We're talking about class actions by 11 members. You have to wonder whether class action is the appropriate action under the circumstances, unless other members join the class action suit." [GN] UNION PACIFIC: Flood Victims Reach Settlement --------------------------------------------- William Patrick, writing for Palestine Herald Press, reports that a federal lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad filed last April by local victims of the 2016 flood was settled last month for an undisclosed, confidential amount. The lawsuit, one of several representing litigants from nearly 50 Texas counties, could have cost the railroad tens of millions of dollars. The suit alleged Union Pacific had aggravated flood damage by failing to properly maintain drainage system and culverts. Since the plaintiffs accepted Union Pacific's offer, the matter will not be heard in federal court. No admission of guilt was made by the railroad, and the amount of the settlement was ordered to remain confidential. Local attorney Charles Nichols, Esq. who represented several of the litigants in the class-action suit, could not comment on how much Union Pacific Railroad will have to pay flood victims. He said, however, the decision was a win for his clients. "We always focus on what is best for our clients," Nichols told the Herald-Press Feb. 22. "In the end, we reached a settlement our clients were happy with." Plaintiffs alleged Union Pacific failed, for years, to maintain drainage systems and culverts. Heavy rains, the suit alleged, caused enormous property damage and loss. Photographic evidence of closed-off culverts, blocked drainage pipes, and water on residents' land were included in the class-action suit. In response, Union Pacific documented that the railroad had invested roughly $34 billion in its network, operations, and infrastructure between 2008-2017. Last June, Union Pacific attempted to name the City of Palestine a "responsible third-party" to the flood damage, in a failed attempt to lessen its own financial liability.[GN] UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Youth Immigration Status --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Krell, writing for TNT, reports that several young immigrants in Western Washington have sued the federal government, saying they've been or expect to be wrongfully denied a type of immigration status for youths who have suffered abuse, neglect or abandonment. They argue that someone under 21 is eligible for the so-called Special Immigrant Juvenile Status if a state court decides that person can't be reunited with a parent and should not return to his or her country of origin. Last year, the lawsuit says, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services started denying the special status to youths who have turned 18. "It's the ones who were 18, 19 and 20 at the time the state juvenile court issues the order," said Northwest Immigrant Rights Project attorney Matt Adams -- one of the attorneys who filed the case. "That is where under the Trump administration, USCIS has said: 'We don't believe that the state court actually has the authority to issue this order.'" The federal agency said it does not comment on pending litigation but did send The News Tribune a general statement about the Special Immigrant Juvenile status. "USCIS continues to ensure that children who have required the protection of a juvenile court from parental abuse, abandonment or neglect receive the humanitarian benefits they are eligible for," spokeswoman Jessica Collins wrote. "The agency's highly trained and experienced officers evaluate each petition on a case-by-case basis, to determine if the petitioner qualifies for SIJ classification according to our nation's laws and policies." The class-action, filed on March 5 in U.S. District Court in Seattle, involves two Pierce County cases and one from Skagit County. The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has asked the court to certify a class of up to 100 youths. Similar lawsuits have been filed in California and New York, Adams said. "It's hard to know the exact numbers," he said when asked how many youths apply for the status, which congress created. He estimates there are between several dozen and 100 people in Washington who qualify and submit the applications each year. Of those, he said maybe 10 percent are 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds. "This is a very small group, and that's true nationwide," he said. He estimated there are a few thousand youths across the country who qualify for the status and that a small portion of them have already turned 18. The order of a state court judge doesn't guarantee the status, Adams said. He or she still needs to file an application with USCIS and can become ineligible if they commit adult crimes, for example. But, "generally, once you have that order, you are on the path to lawful permanent residence," Adams said. The three youths named in the lawsuit all suffered abuse at the hands of their parents and then came to the United States as young children or teenagers, according to the complaint. It gives this account of their interactions with the state courts and the federal government: Immigration and Customs Enforcement took 20-year-old Jose Luis Vicente Ramos to the immigration detention center in Tacoma after he was visiting a cousin last year and police arrived and searched the home for drugs. "Jose had no knowledge of any drug-related activity and was not charged with any criminal offense," the lawsuit says, but he was taken to the immigration detention center in Tacoma, where he remains. Pierce County Superior Court appointed one of the Guatemalan citizen's relatives as his guardian in June and at the same time entered an immigration order. USCIS denied him the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status in February. The Pierce County court also entered an order for 19-year-old Angel de Jesus Munoz Olivera, a 19-year-old citizen of Mexico, when the court appointed a relative as his guardian. That was in November 2017. He has not yet gotten an answer but expects USCIS to deny his petition. He's in high school and does youth group activities at his church. It was Skagit County Superior Court that entered an immigration order for 20-year-old Leobardo Moreno Galvez in 2016. The court oversaw his custody after he was arrested for possessing alcohol as a 17-year-old and found that "reunification with both of his parents was not viable due to abuse, neglect or abandonment; and that it was not in his best interest to return to Mexico," the lawsuit says. USCIS denied his petition in December. "The government's blanket denial of SIJS for youth who obtain predicate SIJS orders after turning 18 but before the age of 21 violates the controlling statute and regulations," the lawsuit says. "These statutory violations by USCIS punish a vulnerable class of young people, in direct contradiction to the statutory terms implemented by Congress, unlawfully denying them the opportunity to obtain lawful permanent residence and rendering them likely to be removed." [GN] UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Motion to Expand ICE Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Chan, writing for Jurist, reports that a federal judge granted a motion on March 8 to expand the class definition in a class action lawsuit against the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency. In the original complaint, the plaintiff, Ms. L, sought to reunite with her seven-year-old daughter after they both fled violence from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Upon seeking asylum in the US, the two were separated. After the Department of Justice and Attorney General announced their zero-tolerance policy against undocumented immigrants crossing the border, mass amounts of parents and children were separated from one another. The plaintiffs in the class action were granted an injunction to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from separating families while making efforts to reunite those impacted by the Attorney General's orders. The petitioners sought to expand the definition in the class categorization to include families released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement before the injunction was granted. Following the Office Of Inspector General report on the impact of the zero-tolerance policy, thousands of families were impacted, but would not have been included in the original class certification of the lawsuit and injunction. [GN] US BANK: Still Defends Class Suits Related to RMBS Trusts --------------------------------------------------------- Barclays Bank Delaware ("BBD") disclosed in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from February 1, 2019 to February 28, 2019, that U.S. Bank National Association is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The Company said, "Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain RMBS trusts. The plaintiffs or plaintiff groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default. "Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts. Previously, U.S. Bank disclosed that the most substantial case was: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)(class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 770 trusts) and a companion class action case involving additional trusts (collectively, the "BlackRock cases"). Some of the trusts implicated in the aforementioned BlackRock cases, as well as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case. "U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously." Barclays Bank Delaware, through its subsidiary Barclay card US, provides customized and co-branded credit card programs for travel, entertainment, retail, affinity, and financial institutions in the United States. VISA USA: $4.1-Bil. Class Settlement Gets Court's Initial Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- A district court has granted preliminary approval to a US$4.1 billion amended class settlement agreement entered into by Visa U.S.A. with the putative class action plaintiffs of the U.S. interchange multidistrict litigation, according to Bank of Marin Bancorp's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. In 2012, Visa had reached a US$4.0 billion interchange multidistrict litigation class settlement agreement with plaintiffs representing a class of U.S. retailers. On September 17, 2018, Visa signed an amended settlement agreement with the putative class action plaintiffs of the U.S. interchange multidistrict litigation that superseded the 2012 settlement agreement. Visa's share of the settlement amount under the amended class settlement agreement increased to US$4.1 billion. Visa deposited US$600 million into the litigation escrow account in June 2018, increasing the escrow account balance to US$1.5 billion. The escrow balance, combined with funds previously deposited with the court, is expected to cover the settlement payment obligations. On January 24, 2019, the district court granted preliminary approval of the amended class settlement agreement. Bank of Marin Bancorp ("The Bank") is responsible for a proportionate share of certain litigation indemnifications provided to Visa U.S.A. by its member banks in connection with Visa's lawsuits related to anti-trust charges and interchange fees ("Covered Litigation"). The Bank's proportionate share of the litigation indemnification liability does not change or transfer upon the sale of the Bank's Class B Visa shares to member banks. Visa established an escrow account to pay for settlements or judgments in the Covered Litigation. Under the terms of the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan, when Visa funds the litigation escrow account, it triggers a conversion rate reduction of the Class B common stock to shares of Class A common stock, effectively reducing the aggregate value of the Class B common stock held by Visa's member banks like us. The outcome of the Covered Litigation affects the conversion rate of Visa Class B common stock held by the Bank to Visa Class A common stock. The final conversion rate might change depending on the final settlement payments, and the full effect on member banks is still uncertain. Litigation is ongoing and until the court approval process is complete, there is no assurance that Visa will resolve the claims as contemplated by the amended class settlement agreement, and additional lawsuits may arise from individual merchants who opted out of the class settlement. However, until the escrow account is fully depleted and the conversion rate of Class B to Class A common stock is reduced to zero, no future cash settlement payments are required by the member banks, such as us, on the Covered Litigation. The Bank said, "Therefore, we are not required to record any indemnification liabilities related to the Covered Litigation." Bank of Marin Bancorp is the smart option for Bay Area businesses. The company's financing solutions are backed by personal attention and expert advice. The company is based in Novato, California. W.L. GORE: Dennis Brings ADA Class Action in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. doing business as: Gore Wear, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01706 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company specializing in products derived from fluoropolymers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com WAVERLY EASTERN: Faces Chen Suit Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Yi Chen, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, v. WAVERLY EASTERN BROOKLYN INC., LIAB O CHENG, and MICHAEL CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01644 (E.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019) seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half) to Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the statutorily mandated overtime rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants and/or their predecessors sometime in April 2016 to work as a laundry delivery person at Defendants' Laundromat and worked until November 19, 2017. WAVERLY EASTERN BROOKLYN INC. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 WEBCOLLEX LLC: Reyes Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Marissa Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Webcollex, LLC dba CKS Financial, Oliphant Financial LLC And John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:19-cv-00153-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., March 13, 2019), accuses the Defendants of engaging in deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CKS is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in the FDCPA with an address in Chesapeake, Virginia. The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown. CKS and Oliphant are companies, which use the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engage in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (754) 217-3084 Facsimile: (954) 272-7807 E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com WEIGHT WATCHERS: Jubelt Files Securities Class Action in NY ----------------------------------------------------------- John Jubelt, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Weight Watchers International, Inc., Mindy Grossman, Nicholas P. Hotchkin and Artal Group S.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02528 (S.D. N.Y., March 21, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Weight Watchers between May 4, 2018 and February 26, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 27, 2018, Weight Watchers announced its fiscal year 2017 financial results for year ended December 31, 2017 ("FY17"), provided its fiscal year 2018 ("FY18") guidance and provided its three-year fiscal 2020 ("end-of-2020") guidance. For FY18, the Company stated it was on track to report revenues "approaching $1.55 billion and earnings guidance of between $2.40 and $2.70 per fully diluted share," emphasizing that the "guidance reflected the operating strength of the Company's business and expected continued global momentum through the year." Weight Watchers also stated that it was confident in its ability to reach five million subscribers, driving revenues in excess of $2 billion, by the end-of-2020. However, the complaint asserts that the Defendants are liable for: (i) making false statements; or (ii) failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about Weight Watchers. Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Weight Watchers securities was a success, as it: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Weight Watchers' business metrics and financial prospects; (ii) artificially inflated the prices of Weight Watchers securities; (iii) allowed Artal and certain Weight Watchers executives and insiders to sell more than a billion dollars of their personally-held Weight Watchers shares at fraud-inflated prices; and (iv) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Weight Watchers securities at artificially inflated prices, says the complaint. Plaintiff John Jubelt acquired Weight Watchers securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Weight Watchers offers a subscription-based weight loss program and is headquartered at 675 Avenue of the Americas, 6th Floor, New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com WEIRTON, WV: Plant Demolition May Spur Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Kurt Weinschenker, writing for WTRF, reports that the City of Weirton looks to move forward after demolition of the former Weirton Steel Basic Oxygen Plant, but some Weir Avenue residents believe the city and demolition contractor said one thing, and did another. About 50 residents in that area met at the Dunbar Recreation Center in Weirton to hear what local Attorneys Michael and Max Nogay had to say about a possible class action lawsuit on their behalf. Many residents expressed anger with both the city and the demolition contractor. One described what happened to his house. Ted Troia's family has owned a house in the affected area since the 1920's. "I was in the structure, and the whole thing did like a, an expansion and contraction. It was a 'WHOOF!'," Troia said. "And when it was all over, when all the smoke and air cleared, I was able to see what happened. And the whole back wall of my property -- has separated from the structure." Attorney Michael Nogay can barely contain his anger when he reviews the situation. "I don't think it would have happened in a wealthier area," he said. "They wouldn't have allowed it to happen in an area like Angeline Estates in Weirton." "I got the National Weather Service report for the winds," Nogay continued. "The winds were out of the southeast from anywhere between nine and 25 miles per hour. And you could see that smoke cloud -- that cloud of debris -- 60 years of material, went up in the air, instead of keeping in place. There had been no rain at that point. It had not been watered down. That wind just blew it all over these homes, and it's just -- it's sickening." Representatives from the City of Weirton and Frontier Industrial were not immediately available for comment. [GN] WILCO LIFE: Breaches Settlement in Insurance MDL, LSCC Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- LSCC LLC, an Arkansas limited liability corporation, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01854 (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2019), alleges that Wilco's systematic reduction of the payment of death proceeds during the "extension period" through its unilateral imposition of the "retroactive premium charge" constitutes a breach of a court-approved settlement agreement requiring that life insurance coverage during the Extension Period be provided at no cost to the Plaintiff and other members of the Extension Class. By order and judgment dated July 3, 2007, entered in In re Conseco Life Insurance Company Cost of Insurance Litigation, Docket No. MDL 04-1610-AHM (Mcx) ("the MDL Action"), the Court approved a class action Stipulation of Settlement on behalf of a certified settlement class of policyholders, and expressly retained jurisdiction over any subsequent action to enforce its terms. The Final Judgment not only approved but incorporated the terms of the Settlement Agreement, under which Wilco (then known as Conseco) agreed to provide to certain members of the Settlement Class (those holding a policy in-force as of March 2, 2006, that was projected to terminate before the insured turned 100 years old) with one of two forms of settlement relief: either (a) an in-force death benefit extension of coverage for each policy for a specified period of time after the policy would otherwise terminate ("the Extension Benefit") or (b) a specified cash contribution. Members of the Settlement Class eligible for such relief, who did not affirmatively elect the Cash Contribution received the Extension Benefit by default. The Settlement Agreement makes it abundantly clear that the Extension Benefit provides additional life insurance coverage for a specified period of time ("the Extension Period") at no cost to the policyholder. However, LSCC argues, in breach of the Court-approved Settlement Agreement, Wilco has been systematically reducing the death benefits paid on claims made under the Extension Period by unilaterally applying a retroactive premium charge ("the Retroactive Premium Charge") relating to an unused and expired 61-day grace period inapplicable to deaths occurring more than 60 days after the policy's termination date. Accordingly, Wilco does not charge or otherwise collect a premium for a grace period once it expires with no claim for benefits thereunder. Yet contrary to the explicit "no cost" terms of the Court-approved Settlement Agreement, Wilco is deducting the Retroactive Premium Charge for the expired grace period from the proceeds paid pursuant to the Extension Benefit, LSCC contends. Wilco is a corporation organized under Indiana law, with its principal place of business located in Connecticut. Wilco was formerly known as Conseco Life Insurance Company, which maintained its home offices in Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 West Broadway, #900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-4292 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com mmuecke@bffb.com - and - Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com fbalint@bffb.com - and - Frank E. McLain, Esq. FRANK E. MCLAIN LAW FIRM 8340 Meadow Road, Suite 232 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 378-8585 Facsimile: (214) 378-5561 E-mail: frank@fmclainlaw.com WILLIAM SINGER: Sued by Olsen Over College Admissions Scandal ------------------------------------------------------------- ERICA OLSEN, an individual, and KALEA WOODS, an individual v. WILLIAM "RICK" SINGER, THE KEY WORLDWIDE FOUNDATION, THE EDGE COLLEGE & CAREER NETWORK, LLC, d/b/a "THE KEY," THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, YALE UNIVERSITY, and GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:19-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated relating to two fraudulent college-admission schemes, the Test Cheating scam and the Student-Athlete Recruitment scam, coordinated between three distinct groups: (1) parents whose college-age children had insufficient test scores and other credentials to gain admission to highly selective universities, but who nevertheless believed that they could bribe their child's way through the college admissions door; (2) a California con-man, William "Rick" Singer, who, through the use of a fraudulent college-admissions-mentoring company and a bogus California charitable foundation, saw an opportunity to enrich himself to the tune of millions of dollars through fraud and bribery; and (3) individuals involved in the college admission pipeline who were supposed to keep the college admission process honest (including standardized test administrators and representatives of at least seven highly selective Universities) who were willing to accept bribes and thereby taint the college admission process. William "Rick" Singer is a resident of Newport Beach, California, in Orange County California, but also does business in Sacramento, California. Rick Singer owned The Key and served as Chief Executive Officer of KWF. The Edge College & Career Network, LLC d/b/a "The Key," is a limited liability corporation with its principal place of business located in Sacramento, California. The Key also does business in Newport Beach, California, in Orange County, California. The Key was a for-profit college counseling and preparation business that Singer founded in or about 2007 and incorporated in the State of California in or about 2012. The Key Worldwide Foundation ("KWF") is a purported charitable organization with its principal place of business located in Sacramento, California. University of Southern California is a private, highly selective university located in or near Los Angeles County, California. Stanford University is a private, highly selective university located in or near Palo Alto, California, in Santa Clara County. University of San Diego is a private, highly selective university located in or near San Diego County, California. The University of Texas at Austin is a public, highly selective university located in or near Travis County, Texas. Wake Forest University is a private, highly selective university located in or near Forsyth County, North Carolina. Yale University is a private, highly selective university located in or near New Haven County, Connecticut. Georgetown University is a private, highly selective university located in or near the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John F. Medler, Jr., Esq. THE MEDLER LAW FIRM, APC 2030 Main Street Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-4940 Facsimile: (949) 260-4944 E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com - and - David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND: Faces Albers' Suit over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Ascension Data & Analytics, LLC, and OPTICSML for their failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class members' personal and financial information. The case is captioned, MELISSA ALBERS Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, F.S.B., a Delaware Corporation; ASCENSION DATA & ANALYTICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and PAIRPREP, INC. d/b/a OPTICSML, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00211-WOB (S.D. Ohio, March 20, 2019). Wilmington and other financial institutions provided the financial and banking documents to Ascension for data analysis and portfolio valuations. Acsension then hired OpticsML to scan the documents. Ascension and Stanwich confirmed the breach occurred and represented that two cloud-servers belonging to OpticsML were subject to unauthorized access by foreign IP addresses. Defendant WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 500 Delaware Avenue, Wilmington, DE 19801. Defendant ASCENSION DATA & ANALYTICS, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business at 2501 Parkview Drive, Suite 221, Fort Worth, Texas 76102. [BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. Daniel M. Solar, Esq. DANNLAW P.O. Box. 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 Website: www.attorneyzim.com E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com WORLDPANTRY.COM: Dennis Files ADA Suit v. Chocolate Co. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldpantry.com, LLC. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Worldpantry.com, LLC doing business as: Hersheys Store, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01704 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hersheys Store or The Hershey Company, commonly called Hershey's, is an American company and one of the largest chocolate manufacturers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com ZAGG INC: Dennis Asserts ADA Class Action in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zagg, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zagg, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01702 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ZAGG Inc is a publicly traded company based in Midvale, Utah. It is best known for its line of protective coverings for consumer electronics and hand-held devices under the brand name InvisibleShield.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com ZUMIEZ INC: Continues to Defend Herrera Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc. A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against us in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016. Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October 2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal left the case. The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting time. In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which petition was then granted in January 2018. The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018. The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments are scheduled to be held on February 4, 2019. Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington. [*] Securities Class Action Settlements Totaled $5-Bil. in 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that corporations paid $5 billion to settle shareholder class actions last year, a sum more than triple that of 2017, and more of them are resolving for larger amounts, according to a report by Cornerstone Research. The annual report found that there were 78 securities class action settlements in 2018, three fewer than in 2017, but five surpassed $100 million, including the $3 billion deal with Brazilian energy giant Petrobras. More significantly, the average settlement tripled to $64.9 million, when compared to 2017, exceeding the average over the past nine years and reflecting a trend toward larger settlements overall. In fact, the report found that 32 cases settled between $10 million and $49 million in 2018. "These higher dollars aren't just driven by a small number of very large cases," said Laura Simmons, senior adviser of Cornerstone Research, which teamed up with Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse on the report. "In this case, we actually had an upward shift in the size of the typical case." Not only was the average higher, the median settlement value more than doubled from 2017 to $11.3 million, according to the report. Also, the number of settlements valued at less than $5 million declined by nearly 40 percent from 2017. "It was the first year since 2010 in which more than half of the settlements exceeded $10 million," Simmons said. "We really had a shift towards larger cases." The report also looked at the settlement values as a percentage of alleged shareholder damages, referred to as "simplified tiered damages." In 2018, the median settlement as a percentage of "simplified tiered damages" increased to 6 percent, compared to a 5.1 percent median for the past nine years. That had less to do with the strength of the cases and depended more on the size of the defendants, Simmons said. The corporate defendants settling the cases were 50 percent larger than in 2017, according to the report. "Probably plaintiffs are targeting larger firms," Simmons said. "Plaintiffs' lawyer firms choose who they target, and it's a business for them, so they're focusing on larger cases with larger settlement amounts. They generally receive a larger payout." The top five plaintiffs firms leading the number of last year's settlements were The Rosen Law Firm in New York; San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; Glancy Prongay & Murray in Los Angeles; and Pomerantz in New York. As part of a new collaboration with Stanford Securities Litigation Analytics, Cornerstone Research added data on what stage the case was at when it settled. From 2014 to 2018, the highest median settlement value—$36.5 million—came after a motion for summary judgment had been filed but not ruled on. In 2018, 21 percent of the cases settled within two years, according to the report. Those cases also had the highest attorney fees as a percentage of the settlement. The report mirrors the findings of NERA Economic Consulting's research on securities class action settlements in 2018 and comes as filings of securities class actions hit record highs. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.8MM Award vs. Caterpillar Reversed on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the First Department has unanimously reversed and vacated the Oct. 12, 2017 Judgment of the Supreme Court for New York County entered in the appealed case Joanne Corazza, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Amchem Products, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants, Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, 8149, 190028/14, (N.Y. App. Div.), which awarded plaintiff the aggregate amount of $1,791,773 as against defendant Caterpillar, Inc. The Court dismisses the complaint after finding that Plaintiff failed to establish "some scientific basis for a finding of causation attributable to the particular defendant's product" The Court said that "Although decedent testified that he was exposed to asbestos as a result of his work changing brakes, clutches, and gaskets on defendant's forklifts, as well as on forklifts of other manufacturers, he testified as to defendant only that he worked on its forklifts "a lot." Decedent provided no context for deciphering the meaning of "a lot." Nor did he offer any other basis for determining the frequency of his exposure to asbestos through his work on defendant's forklifts. The Court concludes that plaintiff's experts had insufficient foundation for their medical opinions that plaintiff's work with defendant's forklifts was a substantial cause of his lung cancer. A copy of the Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y2qllyph from Leagle.com. Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, New York ( Daniel M. Sullivan -- dsullivan@hsgllp.com -- of counsel), for appellant. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York ( Pierre A. Ratzki of counsel), for respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,684 Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. is defending 3,684 claims as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2018 we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,746 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was US$10.3 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have approximately US$140 million of remaining coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2FDUcqG ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Faces Mount Vernon Mills Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------ Albany International Corp. remains a named direct defendant in some asbestos cases as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 Albany International states, "In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2FDUcqG ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arconic, Units Still Face PI Suits at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Arconic Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves in asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "Arconic Inc. and its subsidiaries and former subsidiaries are defendants in lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury as a result of occupational or other exposure to asbestos. Arconic, its subsidiaries and former subsidiaries have numerous insurance policies over many years that provide coverage for asbestos related claims. Arconic has significant insurance coverage and believes that Arconic's reserves are adequate for its known asbestos exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to the results of operations, cash flows, and financial position of the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2u8Ltrq ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Still Kills 5,000 People in UK Every Year ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Press Association reports that people are still being exposed, warns the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. Firms are being urged to do more to tackle the impact of asbestos after a study found that 5,000 deaths a year are linked to past exposure to the cancer-causing material. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) said people were still being exposed to asbestos, 20 years after it was banned in Britain. More than 130 companies or individuals have been ordered to stop work activities over the past year because of non-compliance with asbestos regulations, said an IOSH report. Asbestos is present in at least 500,000 buildings built before 1999, said the report. Mesothelioma Bev Messinger, the chief executive of IOSH, who will address an International Asbestos Awareness Conference in Washington DC on April 6, said: "It is unacceptable that 20 years on from asbestos being banned in Britain, organisations are still potentially putting at risk the lives of employees, their families and other members of the public. "Courts fine some of the worst offenders, which causes significant commercial and reputational damage, but the human costs far outweigh the financial cost. "Thousands die in Britain every year from cancers like mesothelioma, while many more are diagnosed with it. All this is preventable through good occupational safety and health. It is time for organisations to wake up and realise how dangerous asbestos is. There are no excuses." Vigilant Dr Nick Hopkinson, medical director at the British Lung Foundation, said: "Breathing in asbestos dust can cause mesothelioma. Mesothelioma takes a long time to develop and people often get symptoms 30 to 40 years after exposure to asbestos. "Currently the only treatments available are aimed at slowing the progression of the disease and improving quality of life. "This devastating disease is preventable, and the dangers of asbestos are well known. This means it's vital companies are vigilant and take the proper precautions to protect people from the life-threatening dangers of asbestos, and take urgent action if asbestos has been found." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Still Defends Talc-Related Suits at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc. continues to face personal injury lawsuits related to asbestos-contaminated talc products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos. Many of these actions involve a number of codefendants from a variety of different industries, including manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain asbestos. "We believe that the claims against us are without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do so. To date, there have been no findings of liability against the Company in any of these cases but we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of each case and an adverse outcome, individually or in the aggregate, could be material. "Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated. At this time, we are unable to estimate our reasonably possible losses, if any. Also, in light of the inherent litigation uncertainties, potential costs to litigate these cases are not known, but they may be significant, though some costs will be covered by insurance." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2JczqU4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BEI Amicus Brief Accepted in Terwilliger's Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of New York granted the motion of Builders Exchange, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appealed case In The Matter of the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Donald J. Terwilliger, Etc., Appellant, v. Beazer East, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants, Honeywell International, Inc., etc., Respondent, Motion No. 2019-276, (N.Y. App. Div.) and accepted the proposed brief as filed. A copy of the Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yxe3w7dc from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $308MM for PI Matters at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") has accrued US$308 million at December 31, 2018, for asbestos-related personal injury matters, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. In the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company has also made payments of US$75 million for personal injury matters. BNSF states, "The Company is also party to asbestos claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population. "BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends. "During the third quarters of 2018, 2017, and 2016, the Company analyzed recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by BNSF to estimate its future asbestos liability were reasonable. In 2018, management determined that the liability remained appropriate, and no change was recorded. In 2017, management recorded a decrease to the liability of US$29 million. No adjustment was recorded in 2016. The Company plans to update its study again in the third quarter of 2019. "Throughout the year, BNSF monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary. "At December 31, 2018 and 2017, US$80 million and US$85 million was included in current liabilities, respectively. Defense and processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, were not included in the recorded liability. The Company is primarily self-insured for personal injury claims. "Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs to settle personal injury claims may range from approximately US$270 million to US$370 million. However, BNSF believes that the US$308 million recorded at December 31, 2018 is the best estimate of the Company's future obligation for the settlement of personal injury claims. "The amounts recorded by BNSF for personal injury liabilities were based upon currently known facts. Future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of claims, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding personal injury litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs to be higher or lower than projected. "Although the final outcome of personal injury matters cannot be predicted with certainty, considering among other things the meritorious legal defenses available and liabilities that have been recorded, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity. However, the occurrence of a number of these items in the same period could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2CsARIj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,708 Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., is defending against 7,708 claims as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. Albany International states, "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was defending against 7,708 claims as of December 31, 2018, only ten claims have been filed against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and no settlement costs have been incurred since 2001. Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard reservation of rights." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2FDUcqG ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Asbestos Matters ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Company, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. are from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos. The Company states, "Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors in interest contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. The Registrants are from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants anticipate that additional claims may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2WaFwWT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $89MM A&E Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ Cincinnati Financial Corporation has US$89 million reserves for asbestos and environmental claims at year-end 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "We carried US$89 million of net loss and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims and US$44 million of reserves for mold claims at year-end 2018, compared with US$84 million and US$45 million, respectively, for such claims at year-end 2017. The asbestos and environmental claims amounts for each respective year constituted 1.6 percent and 1.7 percent of total net loss and loss expense reserves at these year-end dates. "We believe our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is limited, largely because our reinsurance retention was US$500,000 or below prior to 1987. We also were predominantly a personal lines company in the 1960s and 1970s, when asbestos and pollution exclusions were not widely used by commercial lines insurers. During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a percentage of our overall business and our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims grew accordingly. Over that period, we endorsed to or included in most policies an asbestos and environmental exclusion." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2FckKR5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claire's Cosmetics Recalled for Possible Asbestos ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce Deachman, writing for Postmedia News, reported that Health Canada issued a recall for cosmetics that may be contaminated with asbestos. The affected products are Claire’s eyeshadows, compact powder and contour palette. According to Health Canada, almost 5,000 of the Chinese-manufactured products were sold in Canada between October 2016 and March 2019. Testing indicated possible asbestos fibres in samples from one lot of each product. As of March 26, however, the company had received no reports of incidents in Canada. These are the details of the three products being recalled: Claire's Eyeshadows (UPC 888711847165, SKU 84716, Lot Number 08/17); Claire's Compact Powder (UPC 888711839153, SKU 83915, Lot Number 07/15); and Claire's Contour Palette (UPC 888711401947, SKU 40194, Lot Number 04/17). Consumers are adviser to immediately stop using the products and return them to a Claire's store for a refund. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $56.0MM Accrued Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos-related liability of US$56,045,000 and long-term asbestos liability of US$288,962,000 as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost that the Company believes the subsidiaries will pay through the next 12 months, overpayments by certain insurers and unpaid legal costs related to defending themselves against asbestos-related liability claims and legal action against the Company's insurers, which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company states, "Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2W1UoH8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,089 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. has 29,089 pending asbestos-related claims as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2018. The Company states, "Of the 29,089 pending claims as of December 31, 2018, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York, approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 400 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. "We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2Flvlcs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid DeLisle Judgment in December 2018 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that it has paid the judgment in the Richard DeLisle claim on December 28, 2018. The Company states, "On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found us responsible for 16% of an US$8 million verdict. The trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against us in the amount of US$1.3 million. We appealed and oral argument on the appeal took place on February 16, 2016. On September 14, 2016, a panel of the Florida Court of Appeals reversed and entered judgment in favor of us. Plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for rehearing and/or certification of an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, which the Court denied on November 9, 2016. Plaintiffs subsequently requested review by the Supreme Court of Florida. Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July 11, 2017. Oral argument took place on March 6, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the trial court's judgment. We paid the judgment on December 28, 2018. That payment is reflected in the fourth quarter 2018 indemnity amount." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2Flvlcs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $295MM Accrual at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had an accrual of US$295 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in the Company's estimated liability as of December 31, 2018. "As of December 31, 2018, the Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$295 million, including US$251 million for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specified time period. "It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant, the Company and claimant's willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are filed)." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2Fr5aB6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had $15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Global Indemnity Limited (NASDAQ: GBLI) had US$15.8 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. Global Indemnity states, "The Company's environmental exposure arises from the sale of general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance. Currently, the Company's policies continue to exclude classic environmental contamination claims. However, in some states, the Company is required, depending on the circumstances, to provide coverage for certain bodily injury claims, such as an individual's exposure to a release of chemicals. The Company has also issued policies that were intended to provide limited pollution and environmental coverage. These policies were specific to certain types of products underwritten by the Company. The Company has also received a number of asbestos-related claims, the majority of which are declined based on well-established exclusions. In establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures, management considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigations. Estimates of these liabilities are reviewed and updated continually. "Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for individual claims, the increase in the volume of claims made by plaintiffs who claim exposure but who have no symptoms of asbestos-related disease, and an increase in claims subject to coverage under general liability policies that do not contain aggregate limits of liability. "The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects the Company's best estimates for future amounts needed to pay losses and related loss adjustment expenses as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the financial statements herein in accordance with GAAP. As of December 31, 2018, the Company had US$15.8 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims and US$13.7 million for environmental claims. The Company attempts to estimate the full impact of the A&E exposures by establishing specific case reserves on all known losses. "In addition, establishing reserves for A&E and other mass tort claims involves considerably more judgment than other types of claims due to, among other things, inconsistent court decisions, an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of asbestos related liabilities, and judicial interpretations that often expand theories of recovery and broaden the scope of coverage." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2Yv8MJN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,134 PI Suits at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Harsco Corporation still defends itself against approximately 17,134 pending asbestos personal injury actions at December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. Harsco Corp. states, "The Company is named as one of many defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. "The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions. "At December 31, 2018, there were approximately 17,134 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. Of those actions, approximately 16,592 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), approximately 116 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and approximately 426 were filed in courts located in other states. "The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25 million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any specific Company product. "At December 31, 2018, approximately 16,550 of the actions filed in New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The remaining approximately 42 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment. "The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions. The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the Company's insurers. "In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously defending these claims and cases. At December 31, 2018, the Company has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,173 cases by stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial. "It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2O3kk28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Posts $849.3MM Liability at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc. has recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$849.3 million as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, have been joined as defendants with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of their products sold prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company's subsidiaries have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the Company's subsidiaries. "We have recorded a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential recoveries. As of December 31, 2018, we have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$849.3 million, which includes expected legal fees and we have recorded an associated asset of US$376.7 million, which represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net exposure of US$472.6 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2F2v0tI ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Xylem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) remains obliged to indemnify the Company from liabilities associated with asbestos matters. The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products resulting from asbestos exposure. We believe there are numerous legal defenses available for such claims and would defend ourselves vigorously. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement among ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis and Xylem, ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) has an obligation to indemnify, defend and hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product liability matters, including settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs associated with all pending and future claims that may arise from past sales of ITT's legacy products. "As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify, defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement or related spin agreements. The former parent's indemnification obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence of asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold prior to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to limited exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in the structure or material of any building or facility, subject to exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem buildings or facilities. The indemnification associated with pending and future asbestos claims does not expire. Xylem has not recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to be indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us under such indemnifications. "On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis. As the parent of Exelis, Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnification obligations under the Distribution Agreement." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2W5Pby1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Baby Shampoo Fails India Watchdog's Tests -------------------------------------------------------------- Teena Thacker, writing for Live Mint, reported that US healthcare giant Johnson and Johnson (J&J) has come under the scanner of regulators in India once again after the company's popular baby shampoo failed quality tests conducted by the Drugs Control Organization of Rajasthan. According to people aware of the matter, the shampoo samples revealed presence of Formaldehyde, which is a known cancer causing chemical. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen. According to a report published in Forbes magazine in 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services added formaldehyde to its list of known human carcinogens in June 2011. In 2014, in response to consumer pressure, J&J had claimed to have removed this potentially harmful chemical-formaldehyde. The state's drug regulatory body has labelled some samples of J&J's baby shampoo as "not of standard quality" and said the product contains "harmful ingredients". In a 5 March letter, the Drugs Control Organization asked state drug controllers across India to withdraw available stocks of J&J's baby shampoo from the market to ensure that it is not used anymore. “The samples of cosmetics contains harmful ingredients," according to the report of samples tested between 16 and 28 February. Mint has reviewed a copy of the report. The baby shampoo is manufactured at Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd's plant at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. "The samples failed the quality tests. The company will have to reply after which action will be taken as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act," a senior official in the Drugs Control Organization in Rajasthan, said on condition on anonymity. J&J offers a range of toiletries for toddlers that includes shampoo, baby lotion, baby soap and baby oil. A spokesperson for the company said J&J's products are "safe" and its assurance process is the most "rigorous in the world". "We have contested the interim test results of the government analysis that were based on unknown and unspecified methods. The government did not disclose the test methods, details or any quantitative findings. This is concerning especially when there is no prescribed test method or requirement for testing formaldehyde in shampoo under the applicable standards," the spokesperson said. The samples have been sent for re-testing, the spokesperson added. On 21 December, India's drug regulator initiated a wider probe into the entire range of baby care products of J&J after ordering it to halt production of its baby talcum powder amid allegations that it contains asbestos. While the test report affirmed that the baby talc is of standard quality, its baby shampoo has now come under the regulatory lens after it failed quality standards. "These samples could have been picked during the same time," added the official. In August, J&J said it removed an array of chemicals and re-engineered its baby care products to make them safer for children. "The portfolio of ingredients was reduced by more than 50%, and all baby products have been designed for gentle care with no parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and sulfates. Even Johnson’s shampoo is no longer its signature golden hue, but instead a clear formula packaged in a translucent yellow bottle for a transparent look and feel," the company said in a statement then. Ubiquitous in many Indian homes, Johnson's baby products specially the powder has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. In 2018, the company's US parent was ordered to pay $4.7 billion to 22 women, who claimed that asbestos in its talc caused them ovarian cancer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Unit Has 1,481 Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ MSA Safety Incorporated's subsidiary remains a defendant in 1,481 cumulative trauma lawsuits at December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC ("MSA LLC") was named as a defendant in 1,481 cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 2,355 claims at December 31, 2018. Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis, mesothelioma, or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. The products at issue were manufactured many years ago and are not currently offered by MSA LLC. A reserve has been established with respect to cumulative trauma product liability claims currently asserted and estimated incurred but not reported ("IBNR") cumulative trauma product liability claims. Because our cumulative trauma product liability risk is subject to inherent uncertainties, including unfavorable trial rulings or developments, an increase in newly filed claims, or more aggressive settlement demands, and since MSA LLC is largely self-insured, there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur losses in excess of presently recorded liabilities. These losses could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and liquidity. We will adjust the reserve relating to cumulative trauma product liability claims from time to time based on whether the actual numbers, types, and settlement values of claims asserted differ from current projections and estimates or there are significant changes in the facts underlying the assumptions used in establishing the reserve. These adjustments may be material and could materially impact future periods in which the reserve is adjusted." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2EZxDwq ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Jury Clears J&J in Talc Asbestos Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Bellon, writing for Insurance Journal, reported that a New Jersey jury cleared Johnson & Johnson of liability in a lawsuit brought by a man who said that asbestos in the company's talcum powder products caused his mesothelioma. The jury delivered its unanimous verdict in Middlesex County Superior Court in New Brunswick, just miles from J&J's headquarters, in the case of plaintiff Ricardo Rimondi. J&J, which faces some 13,000 talc-related lawsuits nationwide, denies that its talc causes cancer, saying numerous studies and tests by regulators worldwide have shown its talc to be safe and asbestos-free. Johnson & Johnson also settled three other mesothelioma talc cases pending in state courts in California, Oklahoma and New York, Chris Panatier, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Reuters. Panatier declined to provide further details, citing confidentiality agreements. Addressing the settlements, J&J in a statement said, "there are one-off situations where settlement is reasonable." J&J said it stood by the safety of its talc and would continue to vigorously defend the safety of baby powder. "We do not have any organized program to settle Johnson's Baby Powder cases, nor are we planning a settlement program," the company said. Referring to the Rimondi verdict, J&J said the company's track record in the talc litigation underscored "the decades of clinical evidence and scientific studies by medical experts around the world" supporting the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder. J&J shares, which had been down slightly, turned positive after the jury verdict was announced and closed up 13 cents at $138.70. Lawyers for the 58-year old Rimondi could not be reached for comment. Rimondi in 2016 was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a type of cancer that has been linked to asbestos exposure. He and his wife sued J&J in 2017. They alleged that Rimondi's lifetime exposure to Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, another powder product containing talc sold by J&J in the past, caused his disease. The jury returned its verdict in favor of the company after just half an hour of deliberations, according to a livestream of the proceedings by Courtroom View Network. Other Trials The healthcare conglomerate to date has faced 12 trials by plaintiffs claiming asbestos in talc caused their mesothelioma. J&J has now been cleared of liability in four trials, with another five resulting in hung juries and mistrials. Three juries have found J&J liable, awarding a total of $172 million in damages. J&J is appealing those verdicts. The majority of the 13,000 talc lawsuits against the company involve ovarian cancer claims. Juries in those cases have hit the company with verdicts as high as $4.69 billion. Some of the ovarian cancer verdicts have been overturned on appeal on technical legal grounds, while the company’s other appeals are still pending. "It remains true that of all the talc-related verdicts against Johnson & Johnson that have been through the appeals process, every one has been overturned," the company said in its statement. Plaintiffs' lawyers have more recently focused on arguing that asbestos contamination in talc caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. Reuters in December published a report detailing that the company knew that the talc in its raw and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos from the 1970s into the early 2000s -- test results the company did not disclose to regulators or consumers. J&J denies the findings of the Reuters report, which it describes as inaccurate and misleading. In emphasizing the safety of its baby powder, the company says that repeated tests of the powder never found asbestos and that it has cooperated fully and openly with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other global regulators. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 460 Open Claims at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that it is aware of approximately 460 open and active asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. PPG Industries states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG. The Company is defending the remaining open and active claims vigorously. "Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was acquired by PPG. All such claims have been either served upon or tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings business. The seller has accepted the defense of these claims subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and the seller. The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in connection with newly filed claims ceased with respect to claims filed after April 1, 2018. "PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180 million for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves include a US$162 million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an amendment to the PC plan of reorganization. These reserves, which are included within Other liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have sufficient current claim information or settlement history on which to base a better estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016. PPG will monitor the activity associated with its remaining asbestos claims and evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required. "The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims; (iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates. As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure, under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of reorganization. While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2O8tt9O ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rehearing of Deere Appeal Denied, Opinion Modified ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California for the First District has issued an order denying petition for rehearing in the appealed case Deere & Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AllState Insurance Company, et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. A145170, (Cal. Ct. App. 1d). In addition, the Court has modified the opinion entered on Feb. 25, 2019, as follows: (1) On page 507, the third sentence of the first paragraph of section II.B., "$1.5 million" is changed to "$2.5 million", so the sentence reads: "Rather, coverage for products liability was provided by a series of first-layer umbrella policies that provided coverage to Deere in excess of a specific dollar amount (ranging over time from $50,000 to $2.5 million) paid by Deere." (2) On page 517, in the first full paragraph starting with" Here, unlike the insured in Padilla," the second, third, and fourth sentences of the paragraph are modified to read: "Rather, once Deere has paid its self-insured retentions under its first-layer umbrella policies and once the first-layer umbrella policies are exhausted, Deere may seek coverage from the higher-layer excess policies. It will be Deere's exhaustion of its SIRs that will trigger coverage under its first-layer policies. And, the exhaustion of the first-layer policies is what will trigger coverage under the higher-layer policies." The remainder of the first full paragraph will continue without change. (3) On page 520, in the second full paragraph that starts "Here, the products liability,", the second sentence of the paragraph is modified to read: "Nothing in the plain language of the excess policies requires a determination that Deere must pay damages (as opposed to obtaining a dismissal without payment) before the insurers are obligated to pay the litigation expenses associated with Deere's defense of the underlying asbestos actions." The remainder of the second full paragraph will continue without change. There is no change in the judgment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 745 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation still defends itself against 745 asbestos-related product liability claims at end of year 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined, milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to industrial users a limited number of products that contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. "For the year ended December 31, 2018, 192 claims were dismissed and 25 claims were settled. For the year ended December 31, 2017, 258 claims were dismissed and 22 claims were settled. Settlements totaled approximately US$7.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2018, compared to US$5.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2017." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2XWHP1r ASBESTOS UPDATE: Science Lab Technician Dies of Mesothelioma ------------------------------------------------------------ BBC reports that an appeal has been made to former school colleagues of a grandmother who died from a cancer usually linked to asbestos exposure. Elizabeth Ann Griggs, 79, worked as a science lab technician at Wells Cathedral School in Somerset between 1969 and 2001, a law firm said. It is asking former staff and pupils to provide information "regarding the use of asbestos-based equipment". Mrs Griggs died in November 2017 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Her family has instructed Irwin Mitchell to investigate whether lab equipment she used at the school in the 1970s caused her disease. Before she died, Mrs Griggs, who was known as Ann Cutis when she worked at the school, said her work involved providing pupils with asbestos mats designed to prevent heat damage to work surfaces. 'Achieve justice' She also remembered setting up and packing away bunsen burners containing solid asbestos. Her husband, Gerald, from Shepton Mallet, said: "Ann died before she was able to achieve justice. "We now want to honour her memory by doing this for her and would be grateful to anyone who might be able to provide more information." The school said in a statement that it "immediately" withdrew the mats in 1976 following national guidance from the government that they "should be replaced wherever possible". It also said following its "own investigations" it was understood that "bunsen burners do not contain asbestos, but are made of metal". It added that it was "fully compliant with all regulatory requirements in respect of the management of asbestos, and does everything that it reasonably can do to make sure that staff, pupils and other visitors are safe." Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops in the lining that covers the outer surface of some of the body's organs. An NHS website says it is "usually linked to asbestos exposure". ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend themselves against lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018. The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary WAG, are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2YrLMLM ********* 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. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. 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 ***