/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191115.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 229 Headlines 3236 BAINBRIDGE: Jimenez Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages ACACIA COMMS: Notices of Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Merger Suits ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Continues to Defend Flaccus Class Action ALL FREIGHT: Remove Labor Case to C.D.California ALLEGIS CORP: Lind Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wage Under FLSA AMERICAN CORADIUS: Fogle Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York AMGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sensipar(R) Antitrust Suits Underway AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs' Response to Dismissal Bid Due Nov. 19 AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Underway BAKER HUGHES: Faces City of Providence Shareholder Class Suit BAKER HUGHES: Tri-State Joint Fund Suit Underway in Delaware BANK OF AMERICA: Durrani Seeks OT Pay for Relationship Managers BEARING CASES: Cert. Bid for Bearing Purchasers Class Renewed BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT: Wicker Alleges Race and Gender Bias in Hiring BLUE APRON: Ferrandini Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California BRASILAGRO: Calif. Suit Against IRSA and Cresud Still Ongoing BRASILAGRO: E.D. Pa. Suits Against IRSA & Cresud SACIFyA Dismissed BRASILAGRO: Nov. 28 Hearing on Class Certification Bid BRAVO GROUP: Shelby-Williams Sues Over of Unlawful Use Biometrics BRINKER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Cyber Security-Related Suit Deferred BURSEY & ASSOCIATES: Williams Sues over Debt Collection Practices CELLULAR SALES: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Tyus Asserts CGH TECHNOLOGIES: Pennington Seeks Overtime Pay for Technicians CHURCHILL DOWNS: Kater Class Action Suit Stayed CHURCHILL DOWNS: Soileau Class Action Ongoing CHURCHILL DOWNS: Thimmegowda Class Action Stayed CHW GROUP: Winters Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls CLEAN ENERGY: Winters Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls COCA-COLA CO: Falsely Represents Milk Products, Salzhauer Says COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Hahn Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert CRISTY'S PIZZA: Underpays Pizza Pro Employees, Riffle Suit Says DADE COUNTY FEDERAL: Hoyos Sues over Overdraft Fees DCP MAINSTREAM: Klitzke Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA DD INNOVATION: Preece Seeks Overtime Wages for MWD Operators DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in Illinois DOMO INC: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action DOMO INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit DXC TECHNOLOGY: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit ENGINEERING SERVICES: Mallory Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reeves FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma EQUIFAX CANADA: Class Suit Over 2017 Breach Tossed Out of Court EURO HOMECARE: Gorzkowska Seeks OT Wages for Healthcare Workers FIDATO PARTNERS: Fajimolu Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Defends Patterson Class Action FMC CORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Bisser Class Suit Due Nov. 18 FMC CORPORATION: Discovery in Livent Corp. Securities Suit Stayed FOSSIL STORES: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FUNKY'S BUSINESS: Unlawfully Kept Employees' Tips, Pearson Says GEN 1: Rader Seeks Overtime Pay for Security Guards GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Bezio Class Action Underway GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Birnbaum et al. Suit Underway GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Mahar Class Action Pending GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Varga Class Suit Still Pending GENERAL ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Tri-State Class Action Suit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Hachem Class Suit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Stayed, Awaits Hachem Ruling GEORGIA POWER: Has Implemented Franchise Fee Schedule GOOGLE LLC: Chrome & Gmail not Accessible to Blind, Lefkowitz Says HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Taken under Advisement HGW AT SLW: Ramsey Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & FMWA IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit in New York IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Amended Odeh & Choi Complaint Due Nov. 18 JAMES RIVER: Silva Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida JBS USA: Pacific Agri-Products Files Class Action vs Big Beef KELLOGG CO: Settlement Reached in Calif. Class Suit KEMPS LLC: Vinales Sues Over Misleading Packaging of Ice Cream KEYBANK: Shanahan Seeks Overtime Pay for Personal Bankers KROEGER COMPANY: Mullins Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Managers LANCE CONN: Gonzalez Suit Moved to Eastern District of California LIVANOVA PLC: Settlement Balance in 3T Suit to be Paid Jan. 2020 LOGMEIN INC: Faces Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit LOUISIANA: Certification of Medicaid-Eligible Youth Class Sought LSB INDUSTRIES: No Liability Remains Outstanding in Wilson Suit MDL 2913: C. B. Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated MDL 2913: Cobb Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated MDL 2913: J.W. Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated MDL 2913: La Conner Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated MDL 2913: Tekulve Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated MDL 2915: Baisden Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2915: Bowen Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2915: Greenberg Suit over Capital Data Breach Consolidated METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Certifies Settlement Class MISSISSIPPI POWER: Bid to Dismiss Turnage Class Action MOLSON COORS: Colorado Class Suits Consolidated NCS PEARSON: Shacke Sues over Collection of Biometric Data NEAL COMMUNITIES: Devivo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages NEW YORK: Rosenberg Sues Over Unlawful Fees for E-ZPass Customers NIXON ENGINEERING: Heslip Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ORLEANS PARISH: Moran Seeks to Certify Class PARETEUM CORP: Vargo Alleges Artificially Inflated Stock Prices PARETEUM CORPORATION: Singh Says Financial Statements Misleading PARSON-BISHOP: Headen Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio PETCO ANIMAL: Wu Sues Over Sale of Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards PETSMART INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards PETSMART INC: Silberstein Sues for Failing to Notify Plan Members PG&E CORPORATION: Vataj Says Business Statements Misleading PHOENIX: Court OKs Damage Class Certification PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Silverberg Says Merger Docs Misleading PLURALSIGHT INC: New York Class Action Transferred to Utah PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Suit Moved to S.D. California QUICKEN LOAN: Illegally Sent Telemarketing Texts, Lopez Claims RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Hollywood Firefighters Suit in Minn. SANOFI-AVENTIS US: MSP Seeks Damages Over Purchase of Zantac SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit SOUTH HOLLAND HOME: Webster Sues over Biometric Data Collection SSCP PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Polk Says SUMMIT COUNTY, OH: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Martin Says SURESCRIPTS LLC: Faces Kennebunk Anticompetitive Suit in Illinois SURESCRIPTS LLC: Monopolizes E-Prescribing Services, Whitman Says TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Reiner Class Action TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit TEXAS PRIDE: Scheve Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers TIMO SUSHI: Faces Tem Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages TNT CABLE: Holts Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA TSUNAMI RIG: Martinez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA TWT 2016: Zhao, et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Esa Says IPO Documents Misleading UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Manzini Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Tomlinson Sues Over 2017 Care Guidelines UNITED SERVICES: Schlagel Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas UNITED STATES: Faces Infusino Case in District of Columbia UNITI GROUP: Artificially Inflates Stock Price, Safadi Suit Says UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Tenn. Class Suit Underway USA: Oztimurlenk Files Suit in Fed. Claims Ct. V LIVE DALLAS: Johnson Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages VICTORIA'S SECRET: Website not Accessible to Blind, Mendez Says VWR INTERNATIONAL: Website not Accessible to Blind, Reid Says WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces Camacho Suit in Eastern District of New York WHOLE FOODS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says XPO LOGISTICS: Villatoro et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers ZYNERBA PHARMA: Velayos Sues over Zygel Reports, Share Price Drop Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 37 PI Cases vs. Harsco Corp. Pending in N.Y. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39,900 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $24MM Aearo-Related Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $620MM for Respirator Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,770 Claimants at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit v. J&J Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Asbestos Claims Are Not Material ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops Shareholder Derivative Suit v. J&J ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 28,829 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1.1BB Noncurrent Liabilities at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Sept 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $161MM Gross Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $562.5MM Liabilities at Sept 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Seeks to Nix 2 ERISA Actions over Talc Matters ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Unit Has 1,591 Exposure Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 700 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 11,413 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $330MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30 ********* 3236 BAINBRIDGE: Jimenez Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elida Jimenez and Maria Santos Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 3236 BAINBRIDGE AVE. FOOD CORP. d/b/a MAR & TIERRA RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, and AURA E. FERNANDEZ, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-10492 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees with overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs and restaurant workers are not exempt from the overtime pay requirement under the federal or state law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a server and as a cook. The Defendants operate a restaurant located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP, P.C. 39 Broadway, Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-344-9022 Facsimile: 212-344-0301 ACACIA COMMS: Notices of Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Merger Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Acacia Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the class actions related to the merger deal with Cisco Systems, Inc. have filed notices of voluntary dismissal. On July 8, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cisco Systems, Inc., a California corporation (the "Parent"), and Amarone Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent (the "Merger Sub"). On July 8, 2019, Acacia Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cisco Systems, Inc., a California corporation (the "Parent"), and Amarone Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent (the "Merger Sub"), providing for the acquisition of the Company by the Parent through the merger of the Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent. On August 5, 2019, a lawsuit, captioned Jiang v. Acacia Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07267 (the "Jiang Action"), was filed against the Company and each of the Company's directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with the Parent and Merger Sub. On August 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned O'Brien v. Acacia Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01463 (the "O'Brien Action"), was filed against the Company and each of the Company's directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to the proposed Merger without taking steps to obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances and engineering the proposed Merger to improperly benefit themselves, Company management and/or the Parent without regard for the Company's public stockholders, and that the Company and its directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by disseminating a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection with the proposed Merger. On August 6, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Rosenblatt v. Acacia Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01470 (the "Rosenblatt Action"), was filed against the Company and each of the Company's directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a false and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection with the proposed Merger. On August 7, 2019, a lawsuit, captioned Mac v. Acacia Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11706 (the "Mac Action"), was filed against the Company and each of the Company's directors in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a materially deficient and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection with the proposed Merger. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek various forms of injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as awards of damages, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees. On August 27, 2019, the Company and the plaintiffs in the O'Brien Action, the Rosenblatt Action and the Mac Action entered into a memorandum of understanding in which these plaintiffs agreed to dismiss with prejudice their individual claims and to dismiss without prejudice the class claims asserted in those actions, in return for the Company's agreement to make the supplemental disclosures set forth under the heading "Supplement to Proxy Statement" in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 27, 2019 (the "Supplemental Disclosures"). On August 27, 2019, the Company and the plaintiff in the Jiang Action agreed in principle that the plaintiff would dismiss with prejudice his claims asserted in that action, in return for the Company's agreement to make the Supplemental Disclosures; that agreement was memorialized in a memorandum of understanding between the Company and the plaintiff in the Jiang Action entered into on August 28, 2019. Pursuant to the memoranda of understanding, the plaintiffs in all four actions filed notices of voluntary dismissal on September 11, 2019. Pursuant to the memoranda of understanding, the plaintiffs in these four actions and their counsel reserved their right to file applications seeking attorney's fees and expenses based upon the purported benefit they believe was conferred upon the Company's stockholders by causing the Supplemental Disclosures to be disseminated, and the Company reserved its right to oppose such fee applications. Acacia Communications said, "The Company intends to continue to engage in a vigorous defense and pursuit of Company favorable judgments of the ongoing litigation matters described above. The ultimate resolution of these proceedings may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows, potentially in the near term. In addition, the timing of the final resolution of these proceedings is uncertain. The Company will continue to incur litigation and other expenses as a result of these proceedings, which could have a material impact on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows." Acacia Communications, Inc., incorporated on June 2, 2009, provides high-speed coherent interconnect products. The company is based in Maynard, Massachusetts. ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Continues to Defend Flaccus Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend the "Flaccus Class Action Suit" in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in various class action suits. Past suits have been brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the following jurisdictions: (i) 2009, Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama (the "Tiger Pride" suit), (ii) 2011, Duval County, Florida (the "JWG" suit), (iii) 2013, Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama (the "Bach" suit), (iv) 2014, Chester County, Pennsylvania (the "Flaccus" suit), and (v) 2015, Gwinnett County, Georgia (the "Sims" suit). The plaintiffs in these cases primarily allege that the defendants charged improper charges (fuel, administrative and environmental charges) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages for unspecified amounts. The 2013 Quitman County, Georgia complaint was dismissed in March 2014. The Company has reached a settlement for $9.0 (inclusive of plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs), resolving the Tiger Pride, JWG, Bach and Sims suits. As of September 30, 2019, $5.7 of this settlement has been paid and the remaining amount is expected to be paid in the fourth quarter of 2019. The Flaccus suit has not been settled and is still pending. Advanced Disposal said, "Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of the Flaccus case, the unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated." Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. provides non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The company was formerly known as ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. in January 2016. Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Ponte Vedra, Florida. ALL FREIGHT: Remove Labor Case to C.D.California ------------------------------------------------ All Freight Carriers Inc. et al. removed the case styled as WAYNE YARIAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALL FREIGHT CARRIERS INC., an Illinois Corporation; AFC LOGISTICS INC., an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV28735 (Filed Aug. 16, 2019), from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 24, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09172 to the proceeding. The class action complaint asserts claims against Defendants' wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code including failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees; failure to maintain required records; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; and unlawful deductions from wages. All Freight is a licensed and bonded freight brokerage. AFC Logistics is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Remington, Indiana.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants are Craig G. Staub, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 213.443.4299 E-mail: cstaub@littler.com - and - MAGGY ATHANASIOUS, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: 310 553 0308 Facsimile: 310 553 5583 E-mail: mathanasious@littler.com ALLEGIS CORP: Lind Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wage Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Lind, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ALLEGIS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-01657 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived current and former Customer Service Representative, Inside Sales, and Warehouse employees of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Ms. Lind alleges. She contends that the Defendant improperly classified these employees as "exempt" for compensation purposes under the FLSA. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Customer Service Representative employee. Allegis Corporation is an access hardware company headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com AMERICAN CORADIUS: Fogle Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius International, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Fogle, David P. Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Coradius International, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06227 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. American Coradius International, LLC also known as ACI is a financial service agency representing banks and finance companies on a nationwide level, they are a first and third party debt collection agency. ACI debt collection agency will collect on student loan debts, credit card debts, charge offs, retail debt, etc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Michael Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com AMGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sensipar(R) Antitrust Suits Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company filed its motion to dismiss both the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint and the indirect purchaser end payor plaintiffs' complaint related to Sensipar(R) Antitrust Class Actions. On July 31, 2019, the multidistrict litigation panel entered an order consolidating in the Delaware District Court the four class action lawsuits brought by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of direct or indirect purchasers of Sensipar(R) against Amgen and various entities affiliated with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. On September 13, 2019, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints, and on October 15, 2019, Amgen filed its motion to dismiss both the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint and the indirect purchaser end payor plaintiffs' complaint. Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California. AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs' Response to Dismissal Bid Due Nov. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs response on the defendants motion to dismiss the consolidated antitrust action suit related to Humira(R) Biosimilar is due on November 19, 2019. Twelve purported class actions against Amgen, along with AbbVie Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the Illinois Northern District Court). On August 9, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in the Illinois Northern District Court. On October 11, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint (as well as brief individual motions), challenging the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' allegations to state any claim for relief under the law. No argument date has been set and plaintiffs' response to the motions is due on November 19, 2019. Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California. AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from a court decision in the case, Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al., remains pending. On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al., and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the Court. The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a March 2017 media article. The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class Action. On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with prejudice. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening brief and the Company filed its answering brief, on May 8, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products in the United States. The company offers deposits products, including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in San Diego, California. BAKER HUGHES: Faces City of Providence Shareholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company faces shareholder class action suit initiated by City of Providence. On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI) against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the same claims in connection with the Transactions. The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Baker Hughes said, "At this time, we are not able to predict the outcome of these claims." Baker Hughes Company provides oilfield products and services. The Company engages in surface logging, drilling, pipeline operations, petroleum engineering, and fertilizer solutions, as well as offers gas turbines, valves, actuators, pumps, flow meters, generators, and motors. Baker Hughes serves oil and gas industries worldwide. The company is based in Houston, Texas. BAKER HUGHES: Tri-State Joint Fund Suit Underway in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ Baker Hughes Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is defending against a shareholder class action suit initiated by Tri-State Joint Fund in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders of Baker Hughes Incorporated ("BHI") against the General Electric Company, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the Transactions. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for a declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Baker Hughes Company provides oilfield products and services. The Company engages in surface logging, drilling, pipeline operations, petroleum engineering, and fertilizer solutions, as well as offers gas turbines, valves, actuators, pumps, flow meters, generators, and motors. Baker Hughes serves oil and gas industries worldwide. The company is based in Houston, Texas. BANK OF AMERICA: Durrani Seeks OT Pay for Relationship Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- Aisha Durrani, Julia Stuhltrager, Melvin Rodriguez, Jacob Savage, and Melissa Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 513752/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Nov. 11, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive any overtime pay for any hours worked over 40. The Defendant was aware that the Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours per workweek, yet the Defendant failed to pay them any overtime compensation by preventing them from recording all hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former non-exempt employees, who worked for the Defendant as Relationship Managers. The Defendant is a nationally chartered banking association headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Deidre Aaron, Esq. Chauniqua D. Young, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. Alan L. Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 BEARING CASES: Cert. Bid for Bearing Purchasers Class Renewed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (Bearing Cases), Case No. 2:12-cv-00501-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs DALC Gear & Bearing Supply Corporation, McGuire Bearing Company, and Sherman Bearings Inc. ask the Court on Nov. 11, 2019 for an order: 1. granting their renewed motion for certifying case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of class defined as: "all distributors in the United States that purchased bearings directly from one or more of the Defendants, SKF USA Inc., or their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint ventures, from and including April 1, 2004 through December 31, 2014. Excluded from the class are Defendants, SKF USA Inc., and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint ventures"; and 2. designating them as the class representatives, and appointing their counsel as Class Counsel.[BN] Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are: David H. Fink, Esq, Darryl Bressack, Esq, Nathan J. Fink, Esq, FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500pa - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIEVAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. Craig W. Hillwig, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 - and - M. John Dominguez, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas B. Bright, Esq. Pamela A. Markert, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 1350 San Francisco, CA 94105-2835 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 - and - Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT: Wicker Alleges Race and Gender Bias in Hiring ------------------------------------------------------------------ TYREESE WICKER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT, LLC, JERSEY PLAZA, LLC, MOHAMMAD ASIF KHAN, and DHAVAL JAIN, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-19053 (D.N.J., Oct. 16, 2019), alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawfully considering the race and sex of applicant, and refused to meaningfully consider African-American or male applicants for certain position pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants' unlawful consideration of race and sex has been applied to all African-American or male applicants who have sought certain positions with Defendants. Ultimately, Defendants discriminated against and retaliated against Plaintiff on the basis of his sex and race, and because Plaintiff complained or opposed the unlawful conduct of Defendants related to the above protected classes. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages to redress the injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being discriminated and retaliated against on the basis of his sex and race, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff & Proposed Class are: Daniel J. Altaras, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC. One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 587-0760 BLUE APRON: Ferrandini Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Keefe Ferrandini an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Blue Apron, LLC and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV32164, was removed from the Superior Court of California - Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court for Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Oct 23, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09140 to the proceeding. Blue Apron Inc. is an American ingredient-and-recipe meal kit service. It exclusively operates in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Blue Apron, LLC are: Rita Mansuryan, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 500-2090 Facsimile: (310) 500-2091 E-mail: rita.mansuryan@faegrebd.com BRASILAGRO: Calif. Suit Against IRSA and Cresud Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that IRSA Propiedades Comerciales S.A. (IRSA), Cresud, and certain managers and directors continues to defend a class action suit that has been re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 23, 2016, a class action was filed against IRSA Propiedades Comerciales S.A. (IRSA), Cresud, and certain managers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint was amended on February 13, 2017. As amended, the complaint, filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Global Depositary Receipts of IRSA between February 11, 2015 and December 30, 2015, claims alleged violations of U.S. federal securities laws. In addition, it argues that defendants have made material misrepresentations and omissions related to the Company's investment in IDB Development Corporation Ltd. ("IDBD"). Such complaint was withdrawn on May 4, 2016 by the plaintiff and re-filed on May 9, 2016 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company is a corporation (sociedade por acoes) organized under the laws of Brazil, and was incorporated on September 23, 2005. The company focuses on the acquisition, development and exploitation of agricultural properties that it believe to be possess significant potential for cash flow generation and value appreciation. The company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. BRASILAGRO: E.D. Pa. Suits Against IRSA & Cresud SACIFyA Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that lawsuits against IRSA Propiedades Comerciales S.A. (IRSA) and Cresud SACIFyA in Pennsylvania have been dismissed. IRSA Propiedades Comerciales S.A. (IRSA) and Cresud and certain of their managers and directors are defendants in a class action filed on April 29, 2016 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint was amended on February 13, 2017. As amended, the complaint, filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Global Depositary Receipts of Cresud between February 11, 2015 and December 30, 2015, alleges violations of U.S. federal securities laws. In addition, it argues that defendants have made material misrepresentations and omissions related to the investment of the Company's subsidiary, IRSA, in IDB Development Corporation Ltd. (IDBD). On September 24, 2018, the plaintiff in the class action against Cresud filed a brief acknowledging the dismissal of the complaint filed in the class action against Cresud for the same reasons as those stated by the Court on September 10, 2018 in the class action against IRSA, subject to its right to appeal. On October 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals in the class action against IRSA. On December 12, 2018, the plaintiff in the class action against Cresud filed a notice for voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, which the Court ordered on May 15, 2019. On December 13, 2018, the plaintiff waived the appeal filed in the class action against IRSA, subject to an agreement with IRSA and Cresud that the parties would bear their own legal costs and fees, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings, and that no charges would remain outstanding. As a result, the United States Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal on December 18, 2018. On May 15, 2019, the Court ordered the voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff in the class action against IRSA. Both cases have been fully adjudicated and dismissed with prejudice in relation to IRSA and Cresud SACIFyA. BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company is a corporation (sociedade por acoes) organized under the laws of Brazil, and was incorporated on September 23, 2005. The company focuses on the acquisition, development and exploitation of agricultural properties that it believe to be possess significant potential for cash flow generation and value appreciation. The company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. BRASILAGRO: Nov. 28 Hearing on Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------ BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the preliminary hearing on plaintiffs' amended motion to approve the claims as class action is scheduled on November 28, 2019. In June 2015, an application to approve an action as a class action was filed with the Central District Court in Lod, Israel, against IDBD, Dolphin Netherlands BV (IDBD's controlling shareholder), C.A.A. Extra Holdings Ltd. (IDBD's former controlling shareholder, or "CAA"), and current and former directors, including alternate directors (including, among others, Messrs. Eduardo Elsztain, Sholem Lapidot, Saul Zang and Mauricio Wior) (the "Defendants"). The complaint alleges that they hold shares in IDBD and that they are creditors of a debt arrangement with IDB Holdings Corporation Ltd. (the "Plaintiffs" and "Debt Arrangement," respectively) raising, among others, claims regarding the conduct of IDBD's controlling shareholders and of its board of directors in connection with the expiration of a transaction for the sale of IDBD's holdings in Clal Insurance Enterprises Holdings Ltd. ("Clal Insurance") in May 2014 and in connection with a rights issuance by IDBD in July 2014 and February 2015. In March 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the class action application and, in June 2016, the Court partially accepted the motion and ordered the Plaintiffs to file an amended class action application that would include only the allegations and remedies with respect to the Clal Insurance transaction. In August 2016, the Defendants filed a motion to appeal (regarding the part of decision that did not dismiss the allegations concerning the Clal Insurance transaction) and the Plaintiffs filed an appeal (regarding the part of the decision that dismissed the allegations concerning the rights issuance) both with the Israeli Supreme Court. Following the dismissal of the appeal proceedings by the Supreme Court, the Plaintiffs filed, in January 2018, a motion of appeal to summarily dismiss the appeal filed by the Defendants, in which the Court ordered the striking of the motion for causes of action that fall under an exemption condition included in the amendment to the Debt Arrangement pertaining to damage that was allegedly caused due to prejudice of rights by virtue of the undertaking of the controlling shareholder and the former controlling shareholder to perform a tender offer for IDBD's shares in accordance with the Debt Arrangement. The Plaintiffs filed an amended motion to approve the claim as a class action. Dolphin, IDBD and IDBD's directors filed a detailed joint answer on May 7, 2018. The preliminary hearing is scheduled for November 28, 2019. In July 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion (in partial agreement) for withdrawal from the proceeding against the Defendants. In light of CAA and IDBD’s former controlling shareholder refusal to agree to the Plaintiffs’ withdrawal without an order for expenses, the Court has set a time for filing arguments on the expenses. BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company is a corporation (sociedade por acoes) organized under the laws of Brazil, and was incorporated on September 23, 2005. The company focuses on the acquisition, development and exploitation of agricultural properties that it believe to be possess significant potential for cash flow generation and value appreciation. The company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. BRAVO GROUP: Shelby-Williams Sues Over of Unlawful Use Biometrics ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cora Shelby-Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRAVO GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a ROSEWOOD CARE CENTERS, BRAVO CARE OF JOLIET, INC. d/b/a ROSEWOOD CARE CENTER OF JOLIET, and DANIEL L. MAHER, Case No. 2019CH13047 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought against the Defendants to redress and curtail their unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data. The Defendants' employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such situation, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendants disregard employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collect, store, disseminate, and use their employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the Defendants violated and continue to violate BIPA because they did not and continue not to: properly inform the Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff to collect, store, or otherwise use their fingerprints, as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from the Plaintiff and others to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as required by BIPA, says the complaint. Cora Shelby-Williams is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Illinois. Bravo Group Management owns and operates 11 Rehabilitation and Skilled Nursing Facilities in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com BRINKER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Cyber Security-Related Suit Deferred ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2019, that a court has deferred its ruling on the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit related to the 2018 cyber security incident. On May 12, 2018, the company issued a public statement that malware had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that resulted in unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data. The company engaged third-party forensic firms and cooperated with law enforcement to investigate the matter. Based on the investigation of the company's third-party forensic experts, the company believes most Company-owned Chili's restaurants were impacted by the malware during time frames that vary by restaurant, but the company believes in each case began no earlier than March 21, 2018 and ended no later than April 22, 2018. The company expects to incur legal and professional services expenses associated with the cyber security incident in future periods, which could be material. The company will recognize these expenses as services are received. Related to this incident, payment card companies and associations may request us to reimburse them for unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also impose fines or penalties in connection with the cyber security incident, and regulatory authorities may also impose fines or other remedies against the company. While the company do not acknowledge responsibility to pay any such amounts imposed by any third parties, the company may become obligated to pay such amounts or incur significant related settlement costs. The company will record an estimate for losses at the time when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. To limit the company's exposure to cyber security events, the company maintain cyber liability insurance coverage. This coverage and certain other insurance coverage may reduce the company's exposure for this incident. The company's cyber liability insurance policy contains a $2.0 million retention that was fully accrued during fiscal 2018. Since the incident, through September 25, 2019, the company have incurred total costs of $4.2 million related to the cyber security incident. This includes the $2.0 million retention recorded in fiscal 2018, an additional $0.4 million during fiscal 2019 for expenses not believed to be covered by the company's insurance coverage recorded to Other (gains) and charges in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Unaudited), and $1.8 million of receivable for costs incurred that the company believes are reimbursable and probable of recovery under our insurance coverage. The Company was named as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and two in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, filed on May 24, 2018, May 30, 2018, June 14, 2018, and June 28, 2018, respectively (collectively, the "Litigation") relating to the cyber security incident. In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from the cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants involving customer payment card information and seek monetary damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney's fees and costs. Since the initial filing of these cases, the Nevada plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case and joined the Florida lawsuit. Counsel for all parties subsequently agreed to the transfer of the California cases to Florida, and they have been consolidated into a single matter with the case already pending there. On January 4, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims asserting that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the lawsuit and that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Following completion of briefing by the parties, the court conducted a hearing on the company's motion on June 24, 2019. On August 1, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss for lack of standing as to two plaintiffs and denied the motion as to the remaining plaintiffs. The court deferred its ruling on the company's argument that plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted pending further briefing. In the meantime, the parties are engaging in written discovery and the exchange of documents. Brinker International said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to defend the Litigation. As such, as of September 25, 2019, we have concluded that a loss from this matter is not determinable, therefore, we have not recorded a liability related to the Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based on new information as it becomes available." Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns, develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned, operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997 company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas. BURSEY & ASSOCIATES: Williams Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cornelius Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Bursey & Associates, PC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05508-DWL (D. Ariz., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks to redress conduct by Defendant in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, another. In connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant sent Plaintiff written correspondence dated August 16, 2019. Defendant's August 16, 2019 letter is based on a form or template designed to be used with a windowed envelope so that the consumer's name and address appears through the envelope's window, and where Defendant's account number for the consumer appears above the consumer's name and address. According to the complaint, Defendant has used the Template, along with a windowed envelope, to send collection letters to over 40 individuals in the State of Arizona within the year prior to the filing of the original complaint in this matter. Congress enacted the FDCPA in order to eliminate "abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors and to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged." The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt. The Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes -- namely, a personal vehicle loan. Bursey & Associates is a professional corporation that specializes in creditors' rights and asset recovery.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com CELLULAR SALES: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Tyus Asserts ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO TYUS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, LLC, A Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02664-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2019), asserts claims against Cellular Sales for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant accountable for violating his federally protected privacy rights by procuring consumer reports on him and other putative class members for employment purposes, without disclosing to them that it may obtain their consumer report for employment purposes, before obtaining a copy of their consumer report, and by obtaining consumer reports on him and other putative class members without their written authorization, in violation of the FCRA. Cellular Sales provides telecommunication products and services, and is a user of consumer reports as contemplated by the FCRA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, No. 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813-223-5505 Facsimile: 813-257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com CGH TECHNOLOGIES: Pennington Seeks Overtime Pay for Technicians --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW PENNINGTON Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CGH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A Foreign For Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-02056 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated non-exempt workers at the proper overtime rate of time and a half as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Pennington was employed by the Defendant as a "Technician," performing basic computer and security services at airports monitored by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) throughout Florida. He alleges that he and other similarly situated co-workers customarily worked more than 40 hours in a work week but the Defendant paid them straight time for each hour worked regardless of whether the work performed was in excess of 40 hours in a week. CGH is an information engineering and management support company located in Washington, D.C., with satellite offices in Virginia, and North Carolina, and a workforce throughout the United States. CGH provides its customers multiple services, including Security Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David V. Barszcz, Esq. LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A. 533 Versailles Drive, No. 200 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 622-6544 Facsimile: (407) 622-6545 CHURCHILL DOWNS: Kater Class Action Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington has stayed in its entirety the class action styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated. On April 17, 2015, a purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "Washington District Court") alleging, among other claims, that the Company’s "Big Fish Casino" operated by the Company’s then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish Games violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish Casino), and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney’s fees, treble damages, and injunctive relief. On November 19, 2015, the Washington District Court dismissed the case with prejudice and, on December 7, 2015, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 5, 2016 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously disclosed, on January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big Fish Games to Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("Purchaser"), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an Australian corporation, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 29, 2017, by and among the Company, Big Fish Games and the Purchaser. Pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify the Purchaser for the losses and expenses associated with the Kater litigation for Big Fish Games, which is referred to in the Stock Purchase Agreement as the "Primary Specified Litigation." On February 6, 2018, oral arguments on plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal of the Kater litigation took place before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 28, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the Washington District Court's dismissal of the complaint against the Company. On June 12, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Company’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by the Company on May 11, 2018. On July 13, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan in the Washington District Court. On July 20, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Washington District Court, which was denied on November 2, 2018. The Company filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on November 16, 2018. The complaint was amended on March 20, 2019, to add Big Fish Games, Inc., as a party and to assert claims on behalf of an additional plaintiff, Suzie Kelly. On May 10, 2019, the Company filed an answer as to the claims asserted by plaintiff Kater, and joined Big Fish Games in moving to compel arbitration as to all claims asserted by plaintiff Kelly. Big Fish Games also moved to compel arbitration against plaintiff Kater. On June 13, 2019, defendants moved to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration. On August 21, 2019, the Washington District Court partially granted the motion and stayed discovery pending a ruling on the motions to compel arbitration against plaintiffs Kater and Kelly, except as to discovery requests plaintiff Kater served on the Company before amending the complaint. On September 12, 2019, the Washington District Court ordered that the case would be stayed entirely (except for the aforementioned discovery requests), pending the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling on arbitration issues raised in other cases which may be relevant to the arguments raised in the pending motions to compel arbitration. Churchill Downs said, "In accordance with the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company is working closely with the Purchaser to vigorously defend this matter in both the Washington District Court and in any further appellate proceedings, and the Company believes that there are meritorious legal and factual defenses against plaintiff’s allegations and requests for relief." Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and online entertainment company in the United States. It operates through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in 1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. CHURCHILL DOWNS: Soileau Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------- Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, John L. Soileau, et al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana. On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana (the "District Court"). The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter-horse owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008. The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C. ("Fair Grounds Defendants") have collected certain monies through video draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred horse meets. La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds’ live quarter-horse meets. The petition requested that the District Court declare that Fair Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds Defendants to pay all future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff class. On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission. By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the Judgment. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to pursue the case. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Appeal of Administrative Order Dismissing Case for No Right of Action in the District Court seeking a reversal of the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their brief with the District Court and Fair Grounds Defendants filed its brief on August 12, 2016. A hearing was held at the District Court on September 15, 2016 and the District Court affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 7, 2016. By Order dated August 23, 2017, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal without prejudice because the District Court's Judgment did not contain the necessary decretal language. To correct this deficiency, the District Court entered an Amended Judgment on September 19, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the Amended Judgment to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 13, 2018, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling and remanded the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission for further proceedings. On June 27, 2018, the Fair Grounds Defendants filed a Motion for Rehearing with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which was denied on July 12, 2018. On August 10, 2018, the Fair Grounds Defendants filed a Writ of Certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision; the writ was denied on November 14, 2018. The parties had previously attempted to mediate the matter in October 2018. The Company is engaged in ongoing settlement discussions and have established an accrual for an immaterial amount. Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and online entertainment company in the United States. It operates through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in 1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. CHURCHILL DOWNS: Thimmegowda Class Action Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Aristocrat Technologies Inc. ("Purchaser"), Aristocrat Leisure Limited, and Churchill Downs Inc., has been stayed. On February 11, 2019, a purported class action styled Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Aristocrat Technologies Inc. ("Purchaser"), Aristocrat Leisure Limited, and Churchill Downs Inc., was filed in the Washington District Court alleging, among other claims, that "Big Fish Casino," which is operated by Big Fish Games, violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees, injunctive relief, and treble and punitive damages. On May 10, 2019, all of the defendants moved to compel arbitration of the claims, and the Company, the Purchaser and Aristocrat Leisure Limited also moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. On June 13, 2019, defendants moved to stay discovery pending resolution of those motions. On September 12, 2019, the Washington District Court ordered that the case would be stayed entirely, pending the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling on arbitration issues raised in other cases which may be relevant to the arguments raised in the pending motion to compel arbitration. The Company is working to vigorously defend this matter, and believes that there are meritorious legal and factual defenses against plaintiff's allegations and requests for relief. Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and online entertainment company in the United States. It operates through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in 1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. CHW GROUP: Winters Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls -------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WINTERS, JR.,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHW GROUP, INC. D.B.A. CHOICE HOME WARRANTY; HOME WARRANTY ADMINISTRATOR OF ARIZONA, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05509-SPL (D. Ariz., Oct. 25, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants. Beginning in or around July of 2019, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6678, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendants' services. Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6678 has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since at least October 5, 2018. The Plaintiff received multiple solicitation calls from Defendants within 12-month period, the lawsuit says. Defendants are home service contracts advertiser and seller.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: 800 400-6808 Facsimile: 800 520-5523 E-mail: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com CLEAN ENERGY: Winters Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WINTERS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CLEAN ENERGY EXPERTS, LLC, D/B/A SOLAR RESEARCH GROUP; MIX MEDIA 365 LLC D/B/A SOLAR RESEARCH GROUP; NICOLE LEONARD-LONG; NICHOLAS LONG, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02030 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants. According to the complaint, beginning in or around November of 2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6678, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendants' services. Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. Defendants contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers (716) 508-7139 and 480-739-0374 confirmed to be Defendants' number. Defendants' calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says. Clean Energy Experts provides high quality real-time customer leads, appointments, performance marketing and software solutions to solar, energy, and home improvement companies. MediaMix 365 is a marketing services company that delivers high-intent, qualified consumers to companies seeking to scale Nicole Leonard-Long is the owner and operator of MM.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: 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 COCA-COLA CO: Falsely Represents Milk Products, Salzhauer Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Eliana Salzhauer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, and FAIRLIFE, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-07170 (N.D. Ga., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to put a stop to the Defendants' marketing practices regarding the representations of the cows that produce their milk products. The Defendants produce, market and sell a brand of milk products under the "Fairlife" label that are marketed as premium products. Central to the Defendants' marketing of the Products is the representation that the cows that are part of producing the Products are treated humanely. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' representations are false because the Products are not derived from cows that are treated "fairly" or "with extraordinary care and comfort." Contrary to the Defendants' representations, the dairy cows are not treated "fairly" at all--rather, they are victims of horrendous animal abuse, the Plaintiff asserts. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class suffered financial injury because they bought the Products they otherwise would not have bought, or for which they would have paid less. But beyond that, they were forced, through the Defendants' deception, to unknowingly contribute to and participate in the infliction of cruelty on the Fairlife cows through their purchase of the Products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Defendants' Products for the past two years or more. The Defendants produce, market and sell a brand of milk products under the "Fairlife" label.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq. DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1725 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 881-8900 Email: kcanfield@dsckd.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Adam Pom, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com aprom@dicellolevitt.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. Sue J. Nam, Esq. Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com snam@reesellp.com cramirez@reesellp.com COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Hahn Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN HAHN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01656 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action Defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] Attorneys for the John Hahn, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com CRISTY'S PIZZA: Underpays Pizza Pro Employees, Riffle Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AARON RIFFLE, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CRISTY'S PIZZA, INC., JASON D. BIGGS, and CHRISTOPHER L. HAMMACK, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04750-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act by underpaying and failing to pay their employees at the federally mandated minimum wage rate. The Defendants systematically pay employees below the minimum wage rate by deducting cash shortages, uniforms, miscellaneous deductions, and other deductions, and failure to properly reimburse their employees for costs and expenses, Mr. Riffle contends. The Plaintiff worked as a "pizza pro" for the Defendants from October 2015 to August 2015 at their restaurant located at 1029 S. Court St., in Circleville, Ohio. The Defendants operate a chain of restaurants in Ohio under the names Cristy's Pizza and Papa Boos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: 847 644 3425 Facsimile: 847 673 1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com DADE COUNTY FEDERAL: Hoyos Sues over Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------- JOSE HOYOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DADE COUNTY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant, Case No. 97762502 (Fla. 11th Jud'l Cir., Oct., 23, 2019), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from the unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of overdraft fees which DCF charges when it pays certain items. Mr. Hoyos and other DCF customers have been injured by DCF's practices. On behalf of himself and the putative class, Mr Hoyos seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for DCF's breach of contract and violation of Florida's consumer protection law, the lawsuit says. Mr. Hoyos has a personal checking account with DCF. DCF is one of the largest credit unions in Florida.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Daniel Tropin, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525 4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com tropin@kolawyers.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. 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 DCP MAINSTREAM: Klitzke Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristofer J. Klitzke, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. DCP MAINSTREAM, LLC and BALANCE ENVIRONMENTAL & SAFETY SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03207 (D. Colo., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other workers to whom the Defendants have paid straight-time-for-overtime. The Defendants did not pay their hourly workers overtime as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Instead, the Defendants paid their hourly workers the same hourly rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in excess of 40 (straight-time-for-overtime). The Defendants' straight-time-for-overtime plan violated the FLSA because all employee paid in an hour basis are owed overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one-half tomes their regular hourly rates, the Plaintiff points out. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Safety Inspector from October 2017 to June 2019. DCP is one of the largest producers of natural gas liquids (NGLs) and one of the largest natural gas processing companies in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Michael K. Burke, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com mburke@brucknerburch.com DD INNOVATION: Preece Seeks Overtime Wages for MWD Operators ------------------------------------------------------------ Braydon Preece, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. DD INNOVATION LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-04434 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the other MWD Operators worked for the Defendants regularly for more than 40 hours a week. But these workers never received overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, the Plaintiff contends. Instead of receiving overtime pay as required by the FLSA, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and others as independent contractors and paid these workers a flat amount for each day worked (a day-rate) without overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an MWD Operator from January 2017 to July 2017. The Defendant is an oilfield services company providing measurement while drilling and directional drilling services to oil and gas exploration and production companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com litkin@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On September 20, 2019, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff alleges the Company placed telephone calls to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers without consent. The plaintiff seeks an injunction, statutory damages, treble damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses. Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiff." Discover Financial Services operates as a credit card issuer and electronic payment services company. The Company issues credit cards and offers student and personal loans, as well as savings products such as certificates of deposit and money market accounts. Discover Financial Services manages automated teller machine networks. The company is based in Riverwoods, Illinois. DOMO INC: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Domo, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOMO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Utah, and indexed under 19-cv-00781, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Domo common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO" or "Offering") commenced on or around June 29, 2018; or (b) Domo securities between June 28, 2018 and September 5, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Domo common stock traceable to the IPO commenced on or around June 29, 2018; or (b) Domo securities between June 28, 2018, and September 5, 2019, you have until December 16, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Domo was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in American Fork, Utah. The Company was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. The Company operates a cloud-based platform in the United States that purportedly digitally connects everyone from the chief executive officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights, and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. On June 1, 2018, Domo filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on June 28, 2018 (the "Registration Statement"). On June 29, 2018, Domo filed a prospectus in connection with the IPO on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the "Offering Documents"). On or around June 29, 2018, pursuant to the IPO, Domo's Class B common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market ("NASDAQ"). On July 3, 2018, Domo closed the IPO, in which the Company issued and sold 10,580,000 shares of Class B common stock at $21.00 per share. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Domo was experiencing weakness in its enterprise and international businesses; (ii) Domo's billings growth had dramatically slowed; (iii) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein and the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 5, 2019, during after-market hours, Domo issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter of 2020. Although Domo reported positive earnings news, the Company also provided guidance for the third quarter and full fiscal year 2020 that fell short of market expectations. Specifically, Defendants revealed to investors that they expected third-quarter revenue of $41.5-42.5 million versus a consensus of $44.2 million and a loss of $1.04-1.00 per share versus a consensus of a $0.91 loss per share. Additionally, Defendants revealed a full year 2020 view with revenue of $168-169 million versus a consensus of $173.7 million, and a loss of $4.10-4.00 per share versus a consensus of a $3.82 loss per share. Then, on September 6, 2019, during pre-market hours, JMP Securities dropped its Domo target by $10.00 to $37.00, citing the "disappointing" report and guidance, weakness in Domo's enterprise and international businesses, and billings growth that was about half of what was expected. On this news, Domo's stock price fell $9.44 per share, or 37.45%, to close at $15.77 per share on September 6, 2019, or 24.9% below the IPO price of $21.00. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] DOMO INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Domo, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOMO) (i) from June 26, 2018 through September 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"); or (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering") commenced on or about June 29, 2018. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Domo investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Domo class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1699.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Domo was experiencing weakness in its enterprise and international businesses; (2) Domo's billings growth had dramatically slowed; (3) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (4) as a result, Domo's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 16, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1699.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] DXC TECHNOLOGY: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of DXC Technology Company (DXC). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. DXC Technology Company (DXC) Class Period: persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired DXC Technology Company ("DXC") common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus or other documents issued in connection with the April 2017 transaction by which Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company's Enterprise Services segment was spun off and merged with Computer Sciences Corporation, Inc. to form DXC. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/dxc-technology-company-loss-form-2?wire=3 The lawsuit alleges: DXC Technology Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the planned "workforce optimization" plan involved implementing arbitrary quotas; (2) the plan would cut thousands of jobs at the Company; (3) jobs that were particularly at risk of being cut were held by longer-tenured, knowledgeable, and highly compensated senior personnel; (4) these job terminations were selectively timed to artificially inflate reported earnings and other financial metrics; (5) at the time of the formation of DXC Technology Company, J. Michael Lawrie (the incoming President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board at DXC) had forecasted plans for a $2.7 billion workforce reduction in the first year; (6) as a result of these workforce terminations, the Company was unlikely to deliver on client contracts; (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's clients would be dissatisfied and the relationships would be impaired; and (8) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the DXC Technology Company class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] ENGINEERING SERVICES: Mallory Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Mallory, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00248-CRH (D.N.D., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other workers like him, overtime as required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff alleges. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. Troy Mallory worked for the Defendant as a Commissioning Manager. ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC staffs employees to the power industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reeves FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as DARRELL REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02670 (Filed July 19, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa) on Oct 25, 2019. The Northern District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00570-JED-FHM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge John E. Dowdell. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Darrell Reeves brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Enterprise Products Partners. He and other workers like him regularly worked for Enterprise in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, the lawsuit says. Enterprise is an oil and gas and construction staffing company. Enterprise employs oilfield personnel to carry out its work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq. William Richard Liles, Esq. Michael A Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza Houston, TX 74406 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 The Defendant is represented by: Joseph Y. Ahmad, Esq. Jordan Lyn Warshauer, Esq. Neal Avishek Sarkar, Esq. AHMAD ZAVITSANOS ANAIPAKOS ALAVI & MENSING, PC 1221 McKinney St., Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: joeahmad@azalaw.com - and - Rachel Cowen, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 444 W Lake Ste 4000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 372-2000 EQUIFAX CANADA: Class Suit Over 2017 Breach Tossed Out of Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Liz Braun, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that who says there are no cultural differences between Canada and the United States? If you were one of 20,000 Canadians whose information got hacked in the 2017 Equifax breach, your class action suit has been tossed out of court. South of the border, however, Equifax paid out $700 million to settle the same claims with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The Canadian class-action lawsuit was dismissed by a Quebec Superior Court. "The fact there was a U.S. settlement by the defendants of a parallel class action does not change anything," wrote Justice Donald Brisson, according to a story in Blacklock's Reporter. "The risk of developing future harm is not an injury that can be compensated in Quebec law." Two years ago, hackers got access to Equifax file information, including names, addresses, birth dates, social insurance numbers and credit card information for almost 20,000 Canadians. In the U.S., up to 145 million clients were affected. Some 730 Canadians petitioned the Court to approve a class-action lawsuit for millions in unspecified damages. The claim was called purely hypothetical by Brisson, who dismissed the claim of "mental distress" as nothing more than the garden variety inconvenience and anxiety of everyday life. There was no evidence anyone in Canada had been the victim of identity theft. Equifax executives apologized in testimony at the Commons privacy committee in 2017. They said Canadian customers had been issued identity theft insurance, gratis, for a year. At the same time, members of the Senate banking committee laid the Equifax breach at the feet of the Canadian Bankers Association - banks being the true customers of Equifax, according to Sen. Lucie Moncion. Sen. Paul Massicotte added that bankers responsible for compiling credit data in the first place must be accountable for safeguarding customers' information. "While I'm little bit p--d off at Equifax, where did they get that information?" said Massicotte. "They got that information from you. So, while I'm upset with them, I'm upset with you. How do you regain my trust?" [GN] EURO HOMECARE: Gorzkowska Seeks OT Wages for Healthcare Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Gorzkowska, Maria Drwiega, Patricia Martinez, and Barabara Drelichowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EURO HOMECARE LLC and ELZBIETA DARMOROS, Case No. 3:19-cv-0773 (D. Conn., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs at the rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. The Defendants knew that the Plaintiffs worked more than 13 hours per day and they willfully failed and refused to pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages at the required rates, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as home healthcare workers. Euro Homecare is a provider of homemaker and companion services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Fax: (240) 839-9142 Email: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com FIDATO PARTNERS: Fajimolu Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as OLAMIDE FAJIMOLU, the Plaintiff, v. FIDATO PARTNERS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04550-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective: "all persons presently or formerly employed by Defendant in the position of Consultant and/or Accounting Services or in positions with substantially similar job duties who were paid on an hourly basis, and denied overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek from October 1, 2015 to the present." Fidato Partners provides trusted consulting and recruiting services in accounting, risk management, and information technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-273-1054 Facsimile: 215-525-0210 E-mail: murphy@philadelphiaemploymentlawyer.com ec@phillyemploymentlawyer.com The Defendant is represented by: Kelly T. Kindig, Esq. Elizabeth Malloy, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR One Liberty Place, Suite 2800 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-665-2000 Facsimile: 215-665-2013 E-mail: kkindig@cozen.com emalloy@cozen.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Defends Patterson Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al. In a class action captioned, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., Case No. GD 03-021176, originally filed on October 27, 2003, and pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide premium discounts in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions. Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of years required by the rate rule. The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling consumers to a discounted rate. The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL requires proof of reliance, an individual issue that precludes certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for summary judgment. On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the Company's motion. The court also determined that a multiplier of 1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of damages, if any, proven by class members at trial, and that Plaintiffs should bear the responsibility of identifying class members and calculating damages. The Company sought permission from the Pennsylvania Superior Court to appeal both the liability and damage multiplier issues; however, the petition was denied. The Company has filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court requesting consideration of the appeal on the merits, or in the alternative, an order directing the Pennsylvania Superior Court to grant interlocutory review. Fidelity National said, "There has been no determination as to the size of the class. It is unknown whether plaintiffs will seek statutory or actual damages, or whether the judge will exercise discretion to award prejudgment interest or reasonable attorneys' fees. Accordingly, damages are not reasonably estimable at this time. We will continue to vigorously defend this matter, and we do not believe the result will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24, 2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville, Florida. FMC CORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Bisser Class Suit Due Nov. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- FMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Bisser Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al., is due on November 18, 2019. On October 18, 2019, purported stockholders of Livent amended a putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to add FMC Corporation as a defendant. The operative complaint in that case, Bisser Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al. makes similar substantive allegations as the state court case, including alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Livent initial public offering (IPO) offering documents. Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, Defendants shall file a motion to dismiss the Bisser case no later than November 18, 2019. Plaintiffs shall have 45 days to respond to any motion to dismiss, and Defendants shall have as many as 30 days to file a reply in further support of a motion to dismiss. All discovery is stayed in this case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. FMC CORPORATION: Discovery in Livent Corp. Securities Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- FMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that defendants' motion to stay the class action suit entitled In re Livent Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 190501229, has been denied but the court has granted a separate motion of the defendants to stay all discovery. On May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the company's former subsidiary Livent Corporation ("Livent") filed a putative class action complaint in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, in connection with Livent's October 2018 initial public offering. The complaint in this case, Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Livent Corp., et al., No. 190501229, named as defendants Livent, certain of its current and former executives and directors, FMC Corporation, and underwriters involved in the Livent IPO. The complaint alleges generally that the offering documents for the Livent IPO failed to adequately disclose certain information related to Livent's business and prospects. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Livent IPO offering documents. On July 2, 2019, defendants moved to stay the Plymouth County action, in favor of two similar putative class actions relating to the Livent IPO, in which FMC had not been named as a defendant, which are pending in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 18, 2019, a separate state action was filed against the same defendants in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Bizzaria v. Livent Corp., et al., No. 190702133. On July 26, 2019, Plymouth County filed an amended complaint in its state court case. On September 23, 2019, the actions were consolidated under the caption In re Livent Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 190501229. On October 11, 2019, defendants filed preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the case in its entirety. On October 22, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motion to stay the case, but granted a separate motion of the defendants to stay all discovery. FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. FOSSIL STORES: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fossil Stores 1, Inc. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Fossil Stores 1, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10295 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fossil is an American lifestyle brand creatively rooted in authentic vintage and classic design.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com FUNKY'S BUSINESS: Unlawfully Kept Employees' Tips, Pearson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHRYN DICKEN PEARSON on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. FUNKY'S BUSINESS VENTURES, INC., MICHAEL W. FORGUS DBA FUNKY'S CATERING, FPTA EMPLOYEE GROUP, INC., SHEAKLEY HR LLC, JOHN DOE 1-10, and ABC CORPORATION 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00911-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 25, 2019), seeks restitution for all tips unlawfully kept by the Defendants through policies and practices under which banquet employees are not allowed to keep all of their tips. Ms. Pearson alleges that Banquet Employees are required to participate in an invalid tip pool, which includes the mandatory tip out of Captains and Chefs, who are managers or supervisors under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m)(2)(A) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. She adds that the Defendants hold the Banquet Employees' tips for an excessive period of time for the Defendants' own use and benefit. The Plaintiff also seeks equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other damages to which they may be entitled under law or equity under the FLSA and the Ohio common law, on behalf of herself and all other current and former banquet servers, banquet bartenders, and any other tipped banquet employees ("Banquet Employees") at the Defendants' business known as Funky's Catering, which is owned and operated by Michael W. Forgus. Funky's Business is an Ohio for profit corporation, which is owned by Michael W. Forgus. Funky's Catering is registered with the Ohio Secretary of State Web site as a trade name and is used as such by the other Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen M. Myers, Esq. Caroline M. Drennen, Esq. BECKMAN WEIL SHEPARDSON LLC 895 Central Avenue, Suite 300 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: 513 621 2100 Facsimile: 513 621 0106 E-mail: kmyers@beckman-weil.com cdrennen@beckamn-weil.com GEN 1: Rader Seeks Overtime Pay for Security Guards --------------------------------------------------- XEE RADER, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plainitff, vs. GEN 1 PROTECTION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03021 (D. Colo., Oct. 22, 2019), alleges that Protection does not pay its Security Guards overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. Instead, Gen 1 pays all its Security Guards the same hourly rate for all hours worked in a week, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, in excess of 12 in a day, and/or in excess of 12 consecutive hours. Gen 1's straight-time-for-overtime pay plan violates the FLSA, CWCA, and CMWA because the Security Guards are owed overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates, the lawsuit says. Gen 1 provides an array of security and protection services to its clients in the Denver, Colorado area.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael K. Burke, Esq. Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com mburke@brucknerburch.com - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Bezio Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the complaint in the Bezio class action suit is still pending. In June 2018, a lawsuit (the Bezio case) was filed in New York state court derivatively on behalf of participants in GE's 401(k) plan (the GE Retirement Savings Plan (RSP)), and alternatively as a class action on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018, alleging violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements and omissions related to insurance reserves and performance of GE's business segments in a GE RSP registration statement and documents incorporated therein by reference. In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers and Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee for the GE RSP. In January 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Birnbaum et al. Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is seeking dismissal of the second amended complaint in the consolidated Birnbaum and Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Fund suit. In February 2019, two putative class actions (the Birnbaum case and the Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Funds case) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers. In April 2019, the court issued an order consolidating these two actions. In June 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. It alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements regarding GE's H-class turbines and goodwill related to GE's Power business. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between December 4, 2017 and December 6, 2018. In August 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. In September 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Mahar Class Action Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the Mahar suit is pending. In July 2018, a putative class action (the Mahar case) was filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers, a former member of GE's Board of Directors and KPMG. It alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements related to insurance reserves and performance of GE's business segments in GE Stock Direct Plan registration statements and documents incorporated therein by reference and seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015 and July 19, 2018 through the GE Stock Direct Plan. In February 2019, this case was dismissed. In March 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint naming the same defendants. In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In October 2019, the court denied GE's motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending the outcome of the Hachem case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Varga Class Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the Varga class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York is still pending. In December 2018, a putative class action (the Varga case) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York naming GE and a former GE executive officer as defendants in connection with the oversight of the GE RSP. It alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing to advise GE RSP participants that GE Capital insurance subsidiaries were allegedly under-reserved and continued to retain a GE stock fund as an investment option in the GE RSP. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP participants and beneficiaries from January 1, 2010 through January 19, 2018 or later. In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Tri-State Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend the Tri-State case. In August 2019, a putative class action (the Tri-State case) was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants GE and the former Board of Directors of Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI). It alleges fraud, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of duty of disclosure by GE based on allegations regarding financial statements that GE provided the former Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI) board, management and shareholders in connection with BHI's merger with GE's Oil and Gas Business in July 2017. The plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of BHI shareholders during the period between October 7, 2016 and July 5, 2017. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Hachem Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court in "Hachem case" has dismissed a majority of the claims, including all of the claims related to insurance reserves. Since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions under the federal securities laws have been filed against GE and certain affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Hachem case). In October 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a fourth amended consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and January 23, 2018. GE filed a motion to dismiss, and in August 2019 the court dismissed a majority of the claims, including all of the claims related to insurance reserves. General Electric said, "The court, however, granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, and we expect the plaintiffs to file a fifth amended complaint during the fourth quarter of 2019." General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Stayed, Awaits Hachem Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the "Houston case" has been stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the "Hachem case". In October 2018, a putative class action (the Houston case) was filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, certain GE subsidiaries and current and former GE executive officers and employees. It alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of senior notes issued in 2016 and rescission of transactions involving those notes. This case has been stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Hachem case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GEORGIA POWER: Has Implemented Franchise Fee Schedule ----------------------------------------------------- Georgia Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Georgia Public Service Commission (Georgia PSC) has issued an order that found and concluded that Georgia Power has appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule. In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain state tort law claims. In 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's previous dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial court. Georgia Power filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court, which was granted in 2017. In June 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Following a motion by Georgia Power, on February 13, 2019, the Superior Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit petitions to the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling to address certain terms the court previously held were ambiguous as used in the Georgia PSC's orders. The order entered by the Superior Court of Fulton County also conditionally certified the proposed class. In March 2019, Georgia Power and the plaintiffs filed petitions with the Georgia PSC seeking confirmation of the proper application of the municipal franchise fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia PSC's orders. On October 23, 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found and concluded that Georgia Power has appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule. On March 6, 2019, Georgia Power filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals regarding the Superior Court of Fulton County's February 2019 order. Georgia Power believes the plaintiffs' claims have no merit. The amount of any possible losses cannot be calculated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown whether conditional class certification will be upheld and the ultimate composition of any class and whether any losses would be subject to recovery from any municipalities. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time. Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission, distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources, as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern Company. GOOGLE LLC: Chrome & Gmail not Accessible to Blind, Lefkowitz Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ YISROEL LEFKOWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and ALPHABET INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 523387/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Oct. 25, 2019), complains that Google Chrome and Gmail are not readily accessible to and usable by blind individuals in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law and the American With Disabilities Act. The internet is a critical source of information that provides a primary means for, inter alia, communications, the absence of which severely limits everyday activities such as shopping, learning, banking, researching, as well as many other activities for all people, including the sighted, blind, and visually impaired. Blind and visually impaired persons can access online content using keyboards in conjunction with screen-access software. Software can serve the duel function of vocalizing the visual information found on a computer screen or magnifying web-based content. The Plaintiff is severely visually impaired and uses technology to assist him when accessing online content. Plaintiff uses the ZoomText software to assist him by magnifying content displayed on the screen and/or vocalizing content. Plaintiff typically uses the level "7" magnification setting on ZoomText. ZoomText and other similar software are currently the only methods Plaintiff can employ to independently access the internet. The Plaintiff is and was a resident of Kings County and is over the age of 18. The Plaintiff is a legally blind individual. Plaintiff's condition severely limits his major life activity of sight. Google owns, operates, controls, and administers inter alia, gmail.com ("Gmail"). Gmail is an email service developed by Google, a subsidiary of Defendant. Users can access Gmail on the web and using third-party programs that synchronize email content. Google also owns, operates, controls, and administers, inter alia, the Google Chrome web browser ("Chrome"). Gmail is unique among its competitors: it offers a streamlined conversation view, configurable density of information, new higher-quality themes, a resizable navigation bar with always-visible labels and contacts, and better search. In April 2018, Google introduced a new redesign that made changes in user interface like the use of Google's Product Sans font. Other updates included a Confidential mode, which allows users to set an expiration date for a sensitive message or to revoke it entirely, integrated rights management, and two-factor authentication. Gmail's "basic HTML" version will work on almost all browsers. The modern AJAX version is officially supported in the current and previous major releases of Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Edge, and Safari web browsers on a rolling basis. Chrome is a cross-platform web browser developed by Google. It was first released in 2008 for Microsoft Windows, and was later ported to Linux, macOS, iOS, and Android.[BN]. Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Joseph Y. Balisok, Esq. BALISOK & KAUFMAN, PLLC 251 Troy Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (718) 928-9607 Facsimile: (718) 534-9747 E-mail: Joseph@LawBalisok.com HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Taken under Advisement ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Laura Briscoe, et al., the Plaintiff, vs. Health Care Services Corporation, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10294 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey entered an order taking Plaintiff's motion for class certification under advisement. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk, a motion hearing was held on Nov. 7, 2019. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is taken under advisement and the Court will issue a ruling by separate order. All deadlines and hearings are to stand. Health Care Service Corporation is a member owned health insurance company in the United States. HCSC was formerly known as Hospital Service Corporation and changed its name to Health Care Service Corporation in 1975.[CC] HGW AT SLW: Ramsey Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & FMWA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIRANDA RAMSEY, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HGW AT SLW, LLC d/b/a HURRICANE GRILL & WINGS., a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14404-KAM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks redress from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. In August 2017, the Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee as a waitress/restaurant server. The Plaintiff continued her employment with the Defendant until July 20, 2019. During her last two weeks of employment, the Defendant failed to compensate her in any conceivable way, Ms. Ramsey alleges. She contends that the Defendant failed to compensate her at the required federal minimum wage rate and Florida minimum wage rate at her last two weeks of employment. She worked approximately 80 hours totally between July 8, 2019, and July 20, 2019, the lawsuit says. HGW operates a sports bar and restaurant that specializes in serving chicken wings and other bar and pub-fare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Melissa Scott, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Management's Retirement Plans Committee and three current or former IBM executives are named as defendants. On September 29, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 10, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court order. On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States granted defendants' request to hear the case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. International Business Machines Corporation operates as an integrated technology and services company worldwide. The company was formerly known as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. and changed its name to International Business Machines Corporation in 1924. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is headquartered in Armonk, New York. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Amended Odeh & Choi Complaint Due Nov. 18 ----------------------------------------------------------- Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the consolidated Odeh and Choi lawsuit must file an amended complaint by November 18, 2019. A purported class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Odeh v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed December 27, 2018. The complaint in this action alleges that the Company failed to disclose the results of observations made by the FDA during an inspection of the Company's manufacturing facility in Morris Plains, New Jersey in August 2018. The complaint alleges that Immunomedics misled investors by failing to disclose the Form 483 inspection report issued by the FDA which set forth the observations of the FDA inspector during the inspection. Such observations purportedly included, inter alia, manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure in the batch record, and backdating of batch records. The complaint further alleges that the Company's failure to disclose the Form 483 resulted in an artificially inflated price for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On February 8, 2019, a purported class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al. The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws based on claims that the Company violated the federal securities laws by making alleged misstatements in various press releases and securities filings from February 8, 2018 to November 7, 2018 and by failing to disclose the substance of its interactions with the FDA in connection with the Company's submission of its BLA for sacituzumab govitecan. Motions for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and to consolidate the Odeh and Choi actions were granted on September 10, 2019. Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by the court on October 7, 2019, the plaintiffs must file an amended complaint by November 18, 2019. Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey. JAMES RIVER: Silva Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Lucas Silva, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. James River Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 50-02019-CA-012154-XXXX-MB, was removed from the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on Oct. 23, 2019. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:19-cv-81442-RLR to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of insurance related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg. James River is a specialty insurer operating on an approved non-admitted basis in all fifty states and D.C. Since 2003, James River has provided thousands of commercial customers with creative solutions for their particular insurance needs.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. 14 NE 1st Ave STE 1205 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (404) 797-9696 E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com - and - Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: (888) 974-2175 E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com - and - Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 South Biscayne Blvd., No. 2704 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq, Edelsberg Law PA 20900 NE 30th Ave. No. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Aaron Leles Warren, Esq. Sina Bahadoran, Esq. CLYDE & CO US LLP 1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 329-1830 E-mail: aaron.warren@clydeco.us sina.bahadoran@clydeco.us - and - Sergio A. Bueno, Esq. COLE SCOTT AND KISSANE 2001 Biscayne Blvd., Apt. 3605 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (786) 271-2837 JBS USA: Pacific Agri-Products Files Class Action vs Big Beef ------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Mogin, writing for The National Law Review, reports that first it was cattle ranchers. Then came the consumers. Now it's the direct purchasers of one of the nation's most delicious and protein-rich commodities - beef. The purchasers claim in a new class action complaint that the country's largest meatpackers conspired to reduce the capacity of their slaughter and packing plants in order to pay less on one end of the supply chain so they could raise prices on the other. Some of the Big Beef defendants are also defendants in on-going price fixing and supply manipulation cases pending against Big Chicken and Big Pork. Perhaps Big Meat views supply manipulation as the new black for collusive profit-taking. Pacific Agri-Products, Inc., "distributors and exporters of quality food products", filed suit on Oct. 16 in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against JBS USA Food Company Holdings, JBS S.A., Swift Beef Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Cargill, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, National Beef Packing Company, and Marfrig Global Foods S.A. -- aka Big Beef (Pacific Agri-Products, Inc. v. JBS, et al., D. Minn, No. 0:19-CV-02720, Oct. 16, 2019). The defendants are the largest meatpacking companies in the world. They are the leading processors of millions of pounds of boxed beef annually - a product created by combining various cuts from the animal - and produce more than 80% of the beef supplied to wholesalers. All of that means Big Beef collectively controls a crucial link in the distribution chain, the complaint states, something they have exploited. The industry is highly concentrated and demand for the product is relatively unaffected by price changes. Since it can cost as much as $350 million and take more than two years to construct a licensed meat packing plant, the barriers to entry are extremely high. Underutilization of Declining Capacity According to Pacific Agri-Products, the defendants agreed and "publicly signaled" to one another to reduce slaughter volumes by closing or idling plants and halting any plans for expansion. To illustrate how the industry cut capacity, the complaint lists a number of plant closings and operational reductions. Cargile idled a major Plainview, Texas, plant in 2013, a facility that was estimated to represent nearly 4% of the entire U.S. beef industry capacity. A month later, Tyson trimmed production at one of its plants despite reporting to shareholders that it was increasing production to meet increasing demand. Shortly afterwards, JBS purchased an idle plant in Idaho but has yet to open it. In 2014, National Beef shut down a California plant and Cargill shuttered one in Milwaukee. In 2015, JBS closed six plants and Tyson closed one in Iowa. During this period, the companies reported historically high prices, low production, and adequate supply. "Collectively, these closures reduced the industry's annual slaughter capacity by millions of cattle per year," the complaint says, resulting in underutilization of declining capacity. The complaint includes direct quotes from executives on numerous corporate earnings calls. This theme was clear: executives saw reducing capacity as a great way to improve margins. The tactic worked, although cattle ranchers and consumers, and now wholesalers, say it came at their expense. Tyson and JBS enjoyed record profits in 2017 and 2018. They attributed this good fortune to their "visibility" into the beef cattle segment of the supply chain. Margin, Not Market Share Other public statements included one from a Tyson executive who told shareholders during a May 2014 earnings call that it was not even trying to compete for more business. "It is important to remember that we'll continue to run our Beef business for margin not market share," the executive reportedly said. The complaint paints a picture of a cozy industry. The companies and their executives know each other well, engaging one another frequently at industry conferences and association meetings. These tight relationships enabled their collusive arrangement which artificially caused an increase in the spread between the price of fed cattle and the price of beef, the complaint says. Also called the "beef spread," the plaintiffs point out that the per-pound cattle and beef prices historically stayed within 20-to-40 cents of each other. Starting in 2015 that gap started to accelerate, widening to 69 cents in January 2019. Pacific Agri-Products is suing on behalf of itself and all individuals or organizations that purchased beef directly from the defendants. The class period starts as early as Jan. 1, 2015 and continues today. Citing violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, the plaintiff seeks treble damages, costs and attorney fees for the class, and an order enjoining "Defendants and their co-conspirators" from further violating antitrust laws. [GN] KELLOGG CO: Settlement Reached in Calif. Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Kellogg Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit pending before the Northern District of California have filed a motion seeking to approve a settlement. In 2016, a class action complaint was filed against Kellogg in the Northern District of California relating to statements made on packaging for certain products. In August 2019, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding certain statements made on the Company's products and ordered the parties to conduct settlement discussions related to all matters in dispute. As of September 28, 2019, the Company concluded that the contingency related to the unfavorable ruling was probable and estimable, resulting in a liability being recorded. On October 21, 2019, the parties filed a motion to the Court to approve a settlement. Kellogg said, "This litigation, including any potential settlement, is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company will continue to evaluate the likelihood of potential outcomes as the litigation continues. Kellogg Company manufactures and markets ready-to-eat cereal and other convenience foods. The Company's products include cereals, cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks, frozen waffles, and veggie foods. Kellogg markets its products in the United States, Canada, and other countries throughout the world. The company is based in Battle Creek, Michigan. KEMPS LLC: Vinales Sues Over Misleading Packaging of Ice Cream -------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Vinales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kemps LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-10463 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019), seeks damages under consumer protection laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their vanilla ice cream products' packaging. The Defendant sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla, specifically, Vanilla Bean Ice Cream, under their Simply Crafted ("Products"). The Products are misleading because they do not contain the amount, type and percentage of vanilla as a component of the flavoring in the product which is required and consistent with consumer expectations. The representations of "vanilla (bean)" describing the ice cream products are unqualified, and the labels and packaging do not disclose that addition of non-vanilla flavors as part of the Products, the Plaintiff contends. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. The Products contain other representations which are misleading and deceptive. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Products are sold at premium prices, approximately no less than $6.59, per 9.12 OZ calculated on an average per ounce basis across the Products, excluding tax--compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal use and consumption. Kemps LLC manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla, specifically, Vanilla Bean Ice Cream, under their Simply Crafted brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com KEYBANK: Shanahan Seeks Overtime Pay for Personal Bankers --------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KEYBANK, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02477-JG (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 23, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and non-overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as personal banker within the last three years. The Defendant failed to properly pay at least one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the lawsuit says. KeyBank, the primary subsidiary of KeyCorp, is a regional bank headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, and is the only major bank based in Cleveland.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685 7420 Facsimile: (856) 685 7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com jswidler@swartz-legal.com KROEGER COMPANY: Mullins Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Managers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Mullins, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. THE KROEGER COMPANY; and SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. d/b/a FRY'S FOOD AND DRUG, Case No. 1:19-cv-00964-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 12, 2019), is brought on behalf of current and former Assistant Managers (AMs) seeking to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other AMs were required to work more than 40 hours in a workweek but were not paid at the mandated rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay their AMs overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in one or more workweek because the Defendants classify them as exempt from overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an AM at a Fry's Food and Drug store in Phoenix, Arizona. Kroeger is one of the largest retailers in the U.S., which owns and operates Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Meizlish, Esq. Deborah R. Grayson, Esq. MEIZLISH & GRAYSON 830 Main St., Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 345-4700 Fax: (513) 345-4703 Email: brucelaw@fuse.net drgrayson@fuse.net - and - Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 278-4782 Facsimile: (215) 278-4807 Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com - and – Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 215-592-1500 Fax: 215-592-4663 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com LANCE CONN: Gonzalez Suit Moved to Eastern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Michelle Gonzalez an individual person, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Lance Conn and James Bryant, the Defendants, Case No. FCS053607, was removed from the Solano County Superior Court, to U.S. District Court for Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on Oct. 24, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02155-MCE-CKD to the proceeding. The suit seeks $5 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Matthew S. Sepuya, Esq. William Nathaniel McGrane, Esq. MCGRANE PC Four Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 E-mail: matthew.sepuya@mcgranepc.com william.mcgrane@mcgranellp.com - and - Michael John Hassen, Esq. REALLAW, APC 1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 359-7500 Facsimile: (925) 557-7690 E-mail: mjh@jmbm.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: James A. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY PEARSON BRADLEY & FEENEY 88 Kearny Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-1900 Facsimile: (415) 393-8087 E-mail: jmurphy@mpbf.com LIVANOVA PLC: Settlement Balance in 3T Suit to be Paid Jan. 2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------- LivaNova PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the remainder of the settlement amount involving the class action related to the company's 3T device will be paid in January 2020. The Company is currently involved in litigation involving its 3T device. The litigation includes a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, various U.S. state court cases and cases in jurisdictions outside the U.S. The class action, filed in February 2016, consists of all Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between 2011 and 2015 and who currently are asymptomatic for NTM infection. Members of the class seek declaratory relief that the 3T devices are defective and unsafe for intended uses, medical monitoring, damages, and attorneys' fees. On March 29, 2019, the company announced a settlement framework that provides for a comprehensive resolution of the personal injury cases pending in the multi-district litigation in U.S. federal court, the related class action pending in federal court, as well as certain cases in state courts across the United States. The agreement, which makes no admission of liability, is subject to certain conditions, including acceptance of the settlement by individual claimants and provides for a total payment of up to $225 million to resolve the claims covered by the settlement. Per the agreed-upon terms, the first payment of $135 million was paid into a qualified settlement fund in July 2019, and the remainder will be paid in January 2020. Cases covered by the settlement will be dismissed as amounts are disbursed to individual plaintiffs from the qualified settlement fund. LivaNova PLC, a medical device company, designs, develops, manufactures, and sells therapeutic solutions worldwide. It operates in two segments, Cardiovascular (CV) and Neuromodulation (NM). The company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. LOGMEIN INC: Faces Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is defending against a class action suit entitled, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems, Inc., LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No. 502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK, 9:19-cv-81155). On July 25, 2019, a securities class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, referred to herein as the '33 Act Claim, was initiated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida against the Company, Citrix Systems, Inc. and certain officers and directors of both LogMeIn and Citrix, entitled Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems, Inc., LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No. 502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK, 9:19-cv-81155). The lawsuit, which arises from substantially the same set of facts as the Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:18-cv-07285) and the Schlagel v. Wagner et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-10204), was purportedly filed on behalf of current and former Citrix stockholders who acquired LogMeIn common stock in connection with the Company’s January 2017 acquisition of the GoTo Business from Citrix and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged misstatements or omissions made in the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-4 and the related prospectus as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in December 2016. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, fees and costs. The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend it vigorously. LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. LOUISIANA: Certification of Medicaid-Eligible Youth Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled as A.A., by and through his mother, P.A.; B.B., by and through her mother, P.B.; C.C., by and through her mother, P.C.; D.D., by and through his mother, P.D.; E.E., by and through his mother, P.E., the Plaintiffs, v. REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity, as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, and the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00770-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying the case as a class action, with the class defined as: "all Medicaid-eligible youth under the age of 21 in the State of Louisiana who are diagnosed with a mental illness or condition, not attributable to an intellectual or developmental disability, and who are eligible for, but not receiving, intensive home and community based (mental health) services with sufficient frequency, intensity, and duration they need to remain in their homes and home communities"; and 2. appointing them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g). The Louisiana Department of Health, formerly known as the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, is a state agency of Louisiana, headquartered in Baton Rouge. It is Louisiana's largest state agency with a budget of $14 billion and approximately 6,300 personnel.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and class members are: Victor M. Jones, Esq. Sophia Mire Hill, Esq. Neil S. Ranu, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 E-mail: victor.jones@splcenter.org sophia.mire.hill@splcenter.org neil.ranu@splcenter.org - and - Kimberly Lewis, Esq. Abigail Coursolle, Esq. NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM 3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (310) 204-6010 E-mai: lewis@healthlaw.org coursolle@healthlaw.org - and - Travis W. England, Esq. Britney R. Wilson, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001-6860 Telephone: (212) 633-6967 Facsimile: (212) 633-6371 E-mail: england@nclej.org wilson@nclej.org - and - Debra J. Weinberg, Esq. Ronald Lospennato, Esq. ADVOCACY CENTER 8325 Oak Street New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (504) 522-2337 Facsimile: (504) 522-5507 E-mail: dweinberg@advocacyla.org rlospennato@advocacyla.orgS LSB INDUSTRIES: No Liability Remains Outstanding in Wilson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- LSB Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that no liability remains outstanding in the class action suit entitled, Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al. In 2015, a case styled Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of our shareholders and asserts that the company violated federal securities laws by allegedly making material misstatements and omissions about delays and cost overruns at the company's El Dorado Chemical Company manufacturing facility and about the company's financial well-being and prospects. The lawsuit, which also names certain current and former officers, sought an unspecified amount of damages. In October 2018, LSB entered into a preliminary, binding term sheet to settle Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al., which was subject to approval by the court. On January 17, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Wilson Settlement Agreement"), pursuant to which the settlement amount of approximately $18.5 million was paid in March by the company's insurers on behalf of LSB and certain current and former officers in exchange for, among other things, a release of all claims. On May 23, 2019, one request for exclusion from the settlement class was made. On June 28, 2019, the court held a settlement hearing and entered a Judgement Approving Class Action Settlement, which includes a provision whereby the party requesting exclusion may withdraw its exclusion from the settlement and file by July 23, 2019 to rejoin the class. On July 23, 2019, LSB reached a preliminary settlement and the requesting party withdrew its request for exclusion from the class. Subsequently, during the third quarter of 2019, this additional settlement was executed, and the settlement amount was paid to the requesting party by the company's insurers on behalf of LSB and certain current and former officers in exchange for, among other things, an appropriate release of claims. As a result, no liability in relation to this matter remains outstanding as of September 30, 2019. LSB Industries, Inc., incorporated on January 21, 1977, is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical products. The Company operates through chemical business segment. The Company is a manufacturer and distributor of nitrogen fertilizer and other nitrogen products in North America. The company is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MDL 2913: C. B. Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as C. B. individually and as legal guardian of her minor child, C.T.B., as well as on behalf of those similarly situated real party in interest, the Plaintiff, vs. JUUL LABS INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00600 (Filed Sept. 11, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California (San Francisco) on Oct 24, 2019. The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-06903-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act. The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular, Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood; selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media platforms commonly used by youth. The Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing practices. JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the lawsuit says. The C. B. case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include both putative class actions and individual personal injury cases. In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions share multiple factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel select the Northern District of California as the transferee district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Timothy Dylan Moore, Esq. MOORE & OGLETREE, PLLC 1640 Lelia Drive, Ste. 105 Jackson, MS 39216 Telephone: (601) 988-4590 E-mail: tmoore@tdmoorelaw.net Attorneys for JUUL Labs Inc. are Craig D Dillard, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 1000 Louisiana St Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 276-5500 E-mail: cdillard@foley.com MDL 2913: Cobb Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Tyler Cobb and Jordan Heitmann individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02446-RWS (Filed Aug. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California (San Francisco) on Oct 24, 2019. The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-06929-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act. The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular, Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood; selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media platforms commonly used by youth. The Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing practices. JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the lawsuit says. The Cobb case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include both putative class actions and individual personal injury cases. In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions share multiple factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel select the Northern District of California as the transferee district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Kristine K. Kraft, Esq. SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP 100 South 4th Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 E-mail: kkraft@uselaws.com Attorneys for JUUL Labs Inc. are James F. Bennett, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Ste. 1900 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7302 Facsimile: (314) 863-2111 E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com MDL 2913: J.W. Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as J.W., a minor, indivdually by his mother and natural guardian Natasha Welch, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JUUL LABS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00665 (Filed Sept. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California (San Francisco) on Oct 24, 2019. The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-06911-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act. The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular, Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood; selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media platforms commonly used by youth. The Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing practices. JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the lawsuit says. The J.W. case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include both putative class actions and individual personal injury cases. In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions share multiple factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel select the Northern District of California as the transferee district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Kristine K. Kraft, Esq. Nelson Gregory Wolff, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON 100 S 4th St #1200 St Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com kkraft@uselaws.com nwolff@uselaws.com smorgan@uselaws.com MDL 2913: La Conner Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled as La Conner School District on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated school districts, the PLAINTIFF v. JUUL Labs Inc., Altria Group Inc., Altria Client Services, Altria Group Distribution Company, Nu Mark LLC, and Nu Mark Innovations Ltd.,the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:19-cv-01600(Filed Oct. 7, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California (San Francisco) on Oct 23, 2019. The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-06904-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act. The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular, Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood; selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media platforms commonly used by youth. The Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing practices. JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the lawsuit says. The La Conner case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include both putative class actions and individual personal injury cases. In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions share multiple factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel select the Northern District of California as the transferee district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Alison Gaffney, Esq. Dean N Kawamoto, Esq. Felicia Craick, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA) 1201 3RD AVE., Ste 3200 Seatlle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: agaffney@kellerrohrback.com dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com fcraick@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com MDL 2913: Tekulve Suit over JUUL E-cigarettes Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as ANDREW TEKULVE AND MORGAN WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS INC. and PAX LABS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00773 (Filed Sept. 13, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California (San Francisco) on Oct 23, 2019. The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-06906-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act. The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular, Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood; selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media platforms commonly used by youth. The Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing practices. JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the lawsuit says. The Tekulve case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include both putative class actions and individual personal injury cases. In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions share multiple factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel select the Northern District of California as the transferee district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Barbara D. Bonar, Esq. BONAR, BUCHER & RANKIN, PSC 3611 Decoursey Avenue Covington, Kentucky 41015 Telephone (859) 431-3333 Facsimile (859) 392-3900 E-mail: bdbonar@lawatbdb.com - and - Joseph G. Tekulve, Esq. JOSEPH G. TEKULVE LAW Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming 785 Ohio Pike Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone (513) 752-0001 Facsimile (513) 752-0289 E-mail: joetekulvelaw@gmail.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Aneca E. Lasley, Esq SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 41 S High St 2000 Huntington Center Columbus, OH 43215-3406 Telephone: (614) 365-2700 Facsimile: (614) 365-2499 E-mail: alasley@ssd.com MDL 2915: Baisden Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled as MICHELLE BAISDEN, NATALIE ROSSI, SCOTT ROSSI, and PATRICIA MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00623 (Filed Aug. 7, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 24, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02970-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Baisden case is being consolidated with MDL 2915 in re: CAPITAL ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. These actions share factual issues concerning a recently-announced incident in which an individual gained unauthorized access to the personal information, maintained on cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital One credit card customers and individuals who applied for Capital One credit card products. All actions arise from the same data security breach, and they all allege that Capital One failed to put in to place reasonable data protections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the Eastern District of Virginia as the transferee district for the litigation. Common defendant Capital One is headquartered within this district in McLean, Virginia, and represents that relevant documents and witnesses will be found there. Moreover, the AWS defendants maintain that relevant witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS facility located in Northern Virginia. Judge Anthony J. Trenga is an able jurist with MDL experience, and we are confident he will steer these proceedings on a prudent course. The Panel find that centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the Eastern District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02915-AJT-JFA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Briane F. Pagel, Esq. Dixon R. Gahnz, Esq. Daniel P. Bach, Esq. Terrence M. Polich, Esq. LAWTON & CATES, S.C. State Bar No. 1031375 345 W. Washington Ave. Ste. 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: 608 282 6200 Facsimile: 608 282 6252 E-mail: bpagel@lawtoncates.com dgahnz@lawtoncates.com dbach@lawtoncates.com tpollich@lawtoncates.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey D. Pilgrim, Esq. PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS LLP 321 North Clark Street, 26th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 939-6580 Facsimile: (312) 939-0983 E-mail: jpilgrim@pilgrimchristakis.com MDL 2915: Bowen Suit Over Capital Data Breach Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Cindy Bowen and Diane Dillashaw, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07917 (Filed Aug. 23, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 24, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02966-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Bowen case is being consolidated with MDL 2915 in re: CAPITAL ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. These actions share factual issues concerning a recently-announced incident in which an individual gained unauthorized access to the personal information, maintained on cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital One credit card customers and individuals who applied for Capital One credit card products. All actions arise from the same data security breach, and they all allege that Capital One failed to put in to place reasonable data protections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the Eastern District of Virginia as the transferee district for the litigation. Common defendant Capital One is headquartered within this district in McLean, Virginia, and represents that relevant documents and witnesses will be found there. Moreover, the AWS defendants maintain that relevant witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS facility located in Northern Virginia. Judge Anthony J. Trenga is an able jurist with MDL experience, and we are confident he will steer these proceedings on a prudent course. The Panel find that centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the Eastern District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02915-AJT-JFA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gayle Meryl Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com - and - Courtney Elizabeth Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com The Defendants are represented by: Peter Manley Starr, Esq. Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq. Robert Warren Gray, Jr., Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-2767 E-mail: peter.starr@davispolk.com pisajiw@kslaw.com bgray@kslaw.com MDL 2915: Greenberg Suit over Capital Data Breach Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as M.D.P.C. Aaron Saul Greenberg, Emily Behar, Wendy Friedman, and Molly s. Piesco, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07752 (Filed Aug. 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 24, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02965-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Greenberg case is being consolidated with MDL 2915 in re: CAPITAL ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. These actions share factual issues concerning a recently-announced incident in which an individual gained unauthorized access to the personal information, maintained on cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital One credit card customers and individuals who applied for Capital One credit card products. All actions arise from the same data security breach, and they all allege that Capital One failed to put in to place reasonable data protections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the Eastern District of Virginia as the transferee district for the litigation. Common defendant Capital One is headquartered within this district in McLean, Virginia, and represents that relevant documents and witnesses will be found there. Moreover, the AWS defendants maintain that relevant witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS facility located in Northern Virginia. Judge Anthony J. Trenga is an able jurist with MDL experience, and we are confident he will steer these proceedings on a prudent course. The Panel find that centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the Eastern District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02915-AJT-JFA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa R. Emert, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street, Ste 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (954) 675-5240 E-mail:c memert@ssbny.com The Defendants are represented by: Peter Manley Starr, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-2767 E-mail: peter.starr@davispolk.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Certifies Settlement Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Margery Newman, the Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03530 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Durkin entered an order granting Plaintiff's and Intervenors' unopposed motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 7, 2019, Plaintiff's and Intervenors' unopposed motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted. Motion hearing is held on Nov. 7, 2019. Final fairness hearing is set for Feb. 20, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.[CC] MISSISSIPPI POWER: Bid to Dismiss Turnage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Mississippi Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC have each filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the class action suit initiated by Ray C. Turnage. In November 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power and the three current members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to charge a mirror CWIP rate premised upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction costs for the Kemper IGCC prior to placing the Kemper IGCC into service. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were improper. They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid customers by up to $23.5 million in the refund process by applying an incorrect interest rate. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. In response to Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each filing a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2019. The amended complaint included four additional plaintiffs and additional claims for gross negligence, reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing. Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC have each filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Mississippi Power Company, headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi, is a regulated utility subsidiary of The Souterhern Company, a utility holding company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. MOLSON COORS: Colorado Class Suits Consolidated ----------------------------------------------- Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the securities class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was voluntarily dismissed and the class action lawsuits originally filed in Colorado District Court were consolidated, and the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated case. On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed substantially similar putative class action complaints against the Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert (the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead plaintiff were filed in each case. On May 24, 2019, the securities class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was transferred to the Colorado District Court, but was voluntarily dismissed on July 25, 2019. On October 2, 2019, the class action lawsuits originally filed in Colorado District Court were consolidated, and, on October 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated case. On October 11, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to enter a schedule for filing an amended complaint and anticipated motion to dismiss. Molson Coors said, "We intend to defend the claims vigorously. A range of potential loss is not estimable at this time." Molson Coors Brewing Company manufactures, markets, and sells beer and other malt beverage products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally. Molson Coors Brewing Company was founded in 1786 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. NCS PEARSON: Shacke Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS SHACKE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NCS PEARSON, INC. d/b/a PEARSON, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12356 (Ill. Cir., Oct 24, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data. According to the complaint, when a person registers to take an exam through Pearson Vue, he or she is enrolled in a candidate database maintained by Defendant to verify the examination candidate's identity. While many organizations use conventional methods for identity verification (such as a state ID or passport), Defendant's examination candidates are required to have their hand geometry scanned by a biometric device. Unlike state IDs or passports -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- hand geometry is a unique, permanent biometric identifier associated with each examination candidate. This exposes Defendants' examination candidates to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing hand geometry 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, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Suprema data breaches or misuses -- examination candidates have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information. 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. The Plaintiff has continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful conditions created by Defendant's violations of BIPA, the lawsuit says. NCS Pearson, Inc. is a developer and marketer of enterprise application software. The company provides software applications and technologies for education, testing, assessment, and complex data management.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, 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 NEAL COMMUNITIES: Devivo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ COLLEEN DEVIVO, individually and on bealf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEAL COMMUNITIES INC.,, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-021872 (Fla. 17th Jud'l Cir., Oct. 22, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, to solicit new paying customers, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those messages. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members, the lawsuit says. Defendant is a land development company.[BN] The Plaintiff and the Class are 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 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975 3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com NEW YORK: Rosenberg Sues Over Unlawful Fees for E-ZPass Customers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY D/B/A MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS and THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-10478 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the New York General Business Law by charging a $6 annual fee in order for their E-ZPass New York customers to receive a monthly paper billing statement by mail. MTA's E-ZPass is an electronic toll collection system that allows customers to pay toll fares. A portion of the Defendants' Web site states "Monthly statement by mail, annual fee $6.00." By contrast, the Defendants offer their customers monthly billing statements by e-mail free of charge. The Defendants' conduct is prohibited by the GBL and, therefore, constitutes a deceptive act and practice under the GBL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a New York citizen, who resides in Brooklyn and who has had an E-ZPass account with the Defendants since 2016. The Defendants operate bridges and tunnels throughout New York and New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com NIXON ENGINEERING: Heslip Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Will Heslip, David Sanders, Marcus Davis, Steven Mitchell, and Wendy Wise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NIXON ENGINEERING, LLC and TINA TINER NIXON, Case No. 5:19-cv-01327 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for declaratory judgment, damages, prejudgment interest, and costs as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wage and proper overtime compensation for all hours worked. The Plaintiffs have been misclassified by the Defendants as salaried employees and as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Defendants have deprived the Plaintiffs of regular wages and overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over 40 per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Crew Leaders, a Dispatcher, and a Crew Chief. Nixon Engineering, LLC, is a domestic for-profit limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Joshua West, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com west@sanfordlawfirm.com ORLEANS PARISH: Moran Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MILES MORAN, the Plaintiff, v. KEVA LANDRUM-JOHNSON, Chief Judge of Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13553 (E.D. La.), Ms. Moran moved the Court for an order: 1. certifying a declaratory Plaintiff class consisting of: "all individuals with pending state misdemeanor or felony cases who will, after acceptance of their charges by the District Attorney, appear before Defendant Judges for proceedings concerning pretrial release"; and 2. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Foley, Esq. James W. Craig, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 4400 S. Carrollton Ave. New Orleans, La 70119 Telephone: (504) 620-2259 Facsimile: (504) 208-3133 E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org jim.craig@macarthurjustice.org - and - Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. ALEC KARAKATSANIS, D.C. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 681-2409 E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org PARETEUM CORP: Vargo Alleges Artificially Inflated Stock Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN VARGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PARETEUM CORPORATION, ROBERT H. TURNER and EDWARD O'DONNELL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09936 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2019), asserts that Defendant violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Pareteum Corporation's common stock between May 7, 2018 and October 21, 2019, inclusive. In 2015, Pareteum (then named "Elephant Talk Communications"), was a failing penny stock which appeared on the verge of collapse. The Company's fortunes, however, appeared to turn in November 2015, when a new management team entered that was led by Robert H. Turner and Vic Bozzo. This team spearheaded a 12-month restructuring project which appeared to bear fruit in November 2016 as the Company slowly backed away from the brink of bankruptcy. It was at this time that the Company rebranded itself as "Pareteum." Purportedly due to the restructuring, the Company began what can only be described as an incredible winning streak -- continuously reporting record revenues for every quarter in 2018 and the first two quarters in 2019. In fact, the Company's reported revenues increase from $4.1 million to $34 million in 6 quarters -- representing an increase of 730%. The impressive growth quickly drew investor and analyst attention, and the Company's common stock rose from $1.75 per share on January 2, 2019 to high of $5.70 per share in March of 2019 -- an increase of 225%. At least one analyst predicted that the stock could go as high as $9.00 per share before the end of 2019. Pareteum's rags-to-riches storyline would start to fall apart in the summer of 2019 -- when growth began to draw the attention of sceptics in the market. Questions began to arise regarding the Company's business plan, customer base and the legitimacy of its financial reports. Then, the bottom fell out. On October 21, 2019, Pareteum reported that it had been improperly recognizing revenues for all of 2018 and the first two quarters of 2019, and the Company's financial statements for those periods would be restated. According to Company estimates, the restatements could negate $9 million dollars of revenue for 2018 and $24 million for the first two quarters of 2019. This news shocked investors -- as the Company appeared poised to negate over 42% of the aggregate revenue previously recorded for that period. The Company's share price reacted as one would expect, falling from $0.74 per share to $0.30 per share on the next day of trading -- a drop of almost 60%. The Defendants were motivated to and did conceal the true operational and financial condition of Pareteum, and materially misrepresented and failed to disclose the conditions that were adversely affecting the Company throughout the Class Period, because it: -- enabled them to deceive the investing public regarding Pareteum's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of Pareteum's common stock; -- enabled Defendants to artificially inflate the price of Pareteum's common stock; and -- caused Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Pareteum common stock at artificially inflated prices, the lawsuit says. John Vargo is an individual residing in Jacksonville, Fla. He acquired and held shares of Pareteum at artificially inflated prices during the class period and has been damaged by the revelation of the Company's material misrepresentations and material omissions. Pareteum is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. The Company trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol "TEUM." According to the Company's website, Pareteum is provider of "Communications Platform as a Service Solution." Pareteum was originally named "Elephant Talk Communications Corp." It changed its name to Pareteum in November 2016 and appointed Vic Bozzo as the newly-named Company's Chief Executive Officer. Robert H. Turner is the Company's Co-Founder and Chairman. He also took on the role of CEO in November 2018. The Company's website lauds Turner for his vision and experience, claiming that Turner "has set the vision and business tone that has chartered the successful course of numerous international and U.S. domestic communication, software, and technology startup, growth, and Fortune 500 companies." Edward O'Donnell is the Company's Chief Financial Officer. According to the biography found on Pareteum's website, O'Donnell has "25 years of experience in investment banking, private equity investment, and venture capital, in the Software-as-a-Service and digital technology sectors prior." The biography does not disclose that as CFO of AudioEye in 2015, O'Donnell was sued by the company's investors for the "fraudulent booking of revenues" triggering a restatement erasing 92% of the company's reported revenue for the first three quarters of 2014.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com PARETEUM CORPORATION: Singh Says Financial Statements Misleading ---------------------------------------------------------------- AJAY SINGH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PARETEUM CORPORATION, ROBERT TURNER, VICTOR BOZZO, EDWARD O'DONNELL, and DENIS MCCARTHY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09795 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019), targets Defendants' material misrepresentations and concealment regarding Pareteum's true business operations and financial results. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Pareteum securities between December 26, 2017 and October 21, 2019, inclusive. Pareteum, a mobile networking software and services provider, presented itself to investors as a "rapidly growing Cloud Communications Platform company" that was poised for exponential growth due to the Company's involvement in new industries such as block chain, customer wins, a rising "36-month contract revenue backlog," and effective contract conversion rates. The Company traces its origins to Elephant Talk Communications, a languishing company on the brink of failure. Following the introduction of a new management regime led by CEO and Chairman Turner, the Company was re-branded as "Pareteum" and as "Global Cloud Communications Platform." The Company was able to increase its market capitalization twenty-fold between 2016 and 2019 by portraying itself as a high growth company in a barrage of press releases and social media posts touting its new customers and purported multi-million contracts. Its press releases described the Company as a rapidly growing global cloud software communications platform company with a mission to connect "every person and every(thing)." Defendants also touted a "36 month contract revenue backlog" (reaching $900 million) and promoted the Company's conversion rate of contract value and reported revenue growth. Wasting no time, Defendants quickly leveraged the rising stock price to acquire at least two companies -- Artilium plc ("Artilium") and iPass Inc. ("iPass"). Analysts responded favorably to Defendants' claims regarding its purported 36-month contract backlog. For instance, a December 20, 2018 analyst report from Northland Capital Markets reported that, "Over the past 12 months, Pareteum has won 90+ deals. In the prior 3.5 years, the company had signed no new deals. The company has also been adding $10+ million in ACV per quarter, and 3-year backlog has also grown dramatically to several hundred million dollars." The report added that, "As Pareteum deploys its organic backlog and the overall company scales, Pareteum sees the ability to reach 70% gross margin again on the combined Pareteum/Artilium business." Similarly, an analyst report from Maxim Group dated January 11, 2019 stated, "TEUM has over $500M in three-year contracted revenue backlog, which provides strong visibility for revenue growth." Defendants' growth story similarly impressed industry commentators. As a Seeking Alpha article put it: "Pareteum (TEUM-NASD) has been one of the best performing stocks of 2019 so far -- up an astounding 300%+ in the last two and a half months. (Sure beats oil stocks, and that's why I'm looking here.) I've watched the run -- and the chart has been tempting one of my market lines is: At The End Of the Day, it's The Tape That Matters. Price. And the stock has done fabulously well." But contrary to Defendants' statements regarding great customer wins and multi-million dollar contracts, Pareteum's contracts were entered into with either fake entities, related-third parties, or companies so small they had no chance of ever satisfying the value Defendants assigned to their contracts. In addition, Defendants misstated or manipulated its 36-month contract revenue backlog and revenue conversion metrics. Further, the Company improperly and prematurely recognized revenue and reported inflated revenue and accounts receivable in its financial statements in violation of GAAP. These false and misleading representations and omissions artificially inflated Pareteum's stock price. On June 7, 2019, investors started to learn the truth when research firm Marcus Aurelius Value issued a scathing report describing the Company's "massive downside potential" and noting its belief that "the stock is completely uninvestible." The news caused Pareteum's stock to plummet 24% on June 7, 2019, from $3.39 per share to $2.58. The Company, however, was able to stem additional losses by vehemently denying Marcus Aurelius Value's report, dismissing its findings as a "coordinated attack by short sellers." Then, on June 25, 2019, a second research firm, Viceroy Research ("Viceroy"), published a report entitled, "Pareteum - The Wild West of Telecoms." Viceroy's report echoed many of the findings from the Marcus Aurelius Value Report, including that several of Pareteum's partner entities were either nonexistent, insolvent or lacked sufficient resources to satisfy reported contract values, "leading us to believe that they are Pareteum customers who are unable to pay or have no operations." The Viceroy Report also noted that "Pareteum's 36-month contractual backlog measurement is not an accurate predictor of future profits." The Viceroy Report further described Pareteum's growth story as "completely broken and may not have ever existed at all." Following the Viceroy Report, the Company's stock declined another 20%, from $2.47 per share on June 25, 2019 to $2.00 per share at the close of trading on June 26, 2019. On June 27, 2019, Defendants again denied the findings of Viceroy and Marcus Aurelius Value, claiming that the Reports "misrepresent[ed] facts" and made "spurious claims" against the Company. On August 26, 2019, the risks Viceroy and Marcus Aurelius Value warned about began to materialize. Cash-strapped, the Company announced that it was forced to amend its credit agreement with senior creditor Post Road to get access to $2.5 million. As part of the deal, Pareteum had to issue 750,000 shares to Post Road on August 22, 2019, and an additional 250,000 shares on November 15, 2019, thereby seriously diluting existing shareholders. The news caused the Company's stock to drop another 17%, from $2.81 per share on August 26, 2019 to $2.33 at the close of trading on August 27, 2019. Then, on October 16, 2019, the Company announced the sudden and unexplained termination of Pareteum's Chief Operating Officer Denis McCarthy, who had been "deeply involved" with the "contract backlog" metric. The Company also disclosed that it had retained an executive search firm to assist with "assessing the board of directors and key leadership positions," signaling that the departure of other high-level Pareteum officials was imminent. Finally, media outlets, including Seeking Alpha, reported the likelihood that investors would "need to prepare for another disappointing quarterly report with ongoing, material cash burn and management potentially reducing future growth expectations." The news caused the Company's stock to drop another 25%, from $1.13 per share on October 16, 2019 to $0.83 at the close of trading on October 17, 2019. On October 21, 2019, after the market closed, Pareteum announced that it would restate its previously issued consolidated financial statements as of and for the full year ended December 31, 2018, and interim periods ended March 31, 2019 and June 30, 2019. According to the Company, "the decision to restate these financial statements is based on the Company's conclusion that certain revenues recognized during 2018 and 2019 should not have been recorded during that period. For certain customer transactions, the Company may have prematurely or inaccurately recognized revenue." All told, Pareteum has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in shareholder value during the Class Period, and the shares remain down approximately 90% from their Class Period high, the lawsuit says. Based in New York, Pareteum provides backend software services to Mobile Virtual Network Operators, which are essentially entities that provide wireless communications to customers by renting bandwidth from large carriers such as T-Mobile or AT&T. Pareteum was formerly known as Elephant Talk Communications Corp. and changed its name to Pareteum Corporation in November 2016.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Jason A. Zweig, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Danielle Smith, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 752-5455 Facsimile: (917) 210-3980 E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com danielles@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com PARSON-BISHOP: Headen Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Parson-Bishop Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shadonna Headen individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Parson-Bishop Services, Inc. and John Does 1 - 25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00937-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 5, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Parson Bishop Services, Inc. offers credit collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq. 23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 800-5529 Fax: (216) 514-4987 Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com PETCO ANIMAL: Wu Sues Over Sale of Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHY WU, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06035 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell to consumers store gift cards that contain writing in Braille so they will be fully accessible and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. She asserts that because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. The Defendant operates Petco retail stores, as well as stores for various subsidiary companies, and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells retail merchandise in the City and State of New York and throughout the world. Petco operates multiple retail locations in the State of New York and is one of the largest retailers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., No. 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: 516 695 0052 Facsimile: 212.656.1845 E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212 228 9795 Facsimile: 212 982 6284 PETSMART INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MURPHY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. PETSMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09922-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell to consumers store gift cards that contain writing in Braille so they will be fully accessible and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. He asserts that because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. The Defendant operates PetSmart retail stores, as well as stores for various subsidiary companies, and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells retail merchandise in the City and State of New York and throughout the world. PetSmart operates multiple retail locations in the state of New York and is one of the largest retailers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. ZARE KHOROZIAN LAW LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: 201.957.7269 Facsimile: 201.224.9841 E-mail: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212 228 9795 Facsimile: 212 982 6284 PETSMART INC: Silberstein Sues for Failing to Notify Plan Members ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Silberstein, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PETSMART, INC. a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 8:19-cv-02800-SCB-AAS (M.D., Fla., Nov. 12, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and the putative class adequate notice of their right to continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Defendant has repeatedly violated the ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiary in its Petsmart Smartchoices Benefit Plan with adequate notice, as prescribe by the COBRA, of their right to continue their health care insurance coverage following an occurrence of a "qualifying event," according to the complaint. The Defendant's COBRA notice violated the law because it fails to include a termination date for COBRA coverage if elected. The Defendant's deficient COBRA notice both confused and misled the Plaintiff, says the complaint. As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members' ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, cost and expenses. Josh Diehl worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt Assistant Manager. The Defendant is the Plan sponsor of the Petsmart Smartchoices Benefit Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main No: 813-224-0431 Direct Dial: 813-337-7992 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com PG&E CORPORATION: Vataj Says Business Statements Misleading ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER VATAJ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WILLIAM D. JOHNSON, JOHN R. SIMON, GEISHA WILLIAMS, and JASON P. WELLS, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06996 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired PG&E securities between December 11, 2018, and October 11, 2019, both dates inclusive. On January 29, 2019, PG&E filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. The Chapter 11 petition followed in the wake of multiple high-profile lawsuits against PG&E related to widely publicized and catastrophic wildfire incidents that occurred in California in 2015, 2017, and 2018. The incidents were faulted to PG&E, whose alleged misconduct apparently caused the Company's equipment to ignite the wildfires. PG&E is facing $30 billion in liabilities in connection with the wildfires. Following the wildfire incidents, PG&E began periodically initiating rolling power outages across its customers' facilities and service areas. The blackouts were intended to reduce the risk of future wildfire events and scheduled for times when dangerous weather conditions exacerbated chances of further wildfires occurring. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: -- PG&E's purportedly enhanced wildfire prevention and safety protocols and procedures were inadequate to meet the challenges for which they were ostensibly designed; -- as a result, PG&E was unprepared for the rolling power cuts the Company implemented to minimize wildfire risk; and -- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 12, 2019, the New York Times published an article reporting on PG&E's efforts to deal with the rolling power cuts it had implemented in California aimed at minimizing wildfire risk. The article reported, among other issues, that "PG&E's communications and computer systems faltered, and its website went down as customers tried to find out whether they would be cut off or spared." According to the article, "as the company struggled to tell people what areas would be affected and when, chaos and confusion unspooled outside. Roads and businesses went dark without warning, nursing homes and other critical services scrambled to find backup power and even government agencies calling the company were put on hold for hours." On October 23, 2019, it was reported that as a last resort to prevent additional wildfires PG&E began shutting off power to 179,000 homes and businesses in northern and central California counties. On this news, PG&E's stock price fell $0.35 per share, or 4.36%, to close at $7.67. Following this news, PG&E's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 12.2%, to close at $7.20 on October 24, 2019. 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 lawsuit says. PG&E Corporation was incorporated in 1905 and is based in San Francisco, California. The Company, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers in northern and central California of the United States. PG&E's electricity distribution network consists of approximately 107,000 circuit miles of distribution lines, fifty transmission switching substations, and 769 distribution substations. The Company's electricity transmission network comprises approximately 18,000 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines and 84 electric transmission substations. The Company's natural gas system consists of approximately 43,100 miles of distribution pipelines, approximately 6,400 miles of backbone and local transmission pipelines, and various storage facilities. Additionally, the Company also owns and operates nuclear, hydroelectric, fossil fuel-fired, and solar electricity generation facilities.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com PHOENIX: Court OKs Damage Class Certification --------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned Puente, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Phoenix, et al., Defendants. No. CV-18-02778-PHX-JJT. (D. Ariz.) At issue is Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification. President Donald Trump held a rally at the Phoenix Convention Center, and approximately 6,000 demonstrators both pro-Trump and anti-Trump gathered outside the Convention Center. Plaintiffs filed suit against PPD and certain PPD members including Chief Williams, Field Force Commander Moore, Grenadier Team Leader McBride, and Grenadiers Scott, Turiano, Neville, Sticca, White, Howell, and Herr raising four claims: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for excessive use of force during a search or seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (2) a Section 1983 claim for infringement of Plaintiffs' freedom of speech and association rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (3) a Section 1983 claim for due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment and (4) a Section 1983 claim for equal protection violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) provides that a class action that is, an action in which one or more members of a class sue on behalf of all members of the class may proceed only if four prerequisites are met: (1) Numerosity: the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (2) Commonality: there are questions of law or fact common to the class (3) Typicality: the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class and(4) Adequacy of Representation: the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs propose a damages class consisting of those persons who were present on August 22, 2017, at the Trump Protest area north of the Convention Center which was designated as the free-speech zone (the area for anti-Trump protestors bounded to the south by Monroe Street, 2nd Street to the west, and 3rd street to the east) and forced by PPD onto adjacent streets at any point between 8:25 and 10:00 P.M., who did not engage in any conduct justifying the Defendants' use of force against them, and who were subjected to the PPD's dispersal by the use of force, or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to anti-Trump protestors. Proposed Damages Class Failsafe Class Definition Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' proposed damages class definition fails, somewhat ironically, because it is failsafe that is, it limits membership to plaintiffs described by their theory of liability in the class definition such that the definition presupposes success on the merits. Put another way, Defendants argue that, by limiting class membership to those who did not engage in any conduct justifying the Defendants' use of force against them, the class definition requires that the Court examine the merits of each individual's claim before it can determine whether the individual is a member of the class, which Defendants contend is unacceptable. As Defendants point out, Defining the class is of critical importance because it identifies the persons (1) entitled to relief (2) bound by a final judgment and (3) entitled under Rule 23(c)(2) to the best notice practicable in a Rule 23(b)(3) action. Thus, a class definition must be precise, objective, and presently ascertainable' before a class action can proceed. Plaintiffs and Defendants interpret the proposed damages class definition differently. Plaintiffs represent that they intended to define a class not by presupposing that they win the legal question at issue, but rather by limiting the class to individuals who did not engage in certain conduct. Defendants focus not on the conduct of the class members, but rather the conclusion that must be drawn from that conduct that it did not justify Defendants' use of force against them. Here, the Court finds the defect in Plaintiffs' proposed damages class definition to be somewhat akin to a defective complaint in which a claim relies on allegations couched as legal conclusions instead of non-conclusory allegations of fact. If the class definition were to focus on the individuals' conduct, as Plaintiffs intended, concerns about having to reach the merits of Plaintiffs' claims in identifying class members would no longer be present. Moreover, the conduct Defendants have identified as justifying their use of force was only two-fold: individuals attempting to breach the free speech zone barrier and individuals throwing objects (including CS gas cannisters) at PPD officers. Thus, a more precise, presently ascertainable, non-conclusory class definition that is consistent with the class definition Plaintiffs have chosen would be as follows: those persons who were present on August 22, 2017, at the Trump Protest area north of the Convention Center which was designated as the free-speech zone (the area for anti-Trump protestors bounded to the south by Monroe Street, 2nd Street to the west and 3rd street to the east) and forced by PPD onto adjacent streets at any point between 8:25 and 10:00 P.M., who neither threw objects nor attempted to breach the free speech zone barrier along Monroe Street, and who were subjected to the PPD's dispersal by the use of force, or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to anti-Trump protestors. Numerosity, Commonality, Predominance, and Damages Plaintiffs generally describe their theory of liability as follows: PPD used indiscriminate force against the whole protest as opposed to individual protestors against whom such force was justified and declared an unlawful assembly based on the conduct of a few individuals who could and should have been isolated. This undifferentiated use of force and wholesale crowd dispersal violated the protestors' rights. In contrast, Defendants contend that the evidence shows that Plaintiffs' claims are riddled with individualized inquiries that cannot be answered on a classwide basis. Defendants point in particular to evidence that the PPD deployments of munitions, whether in the form of gas and chemical agents (Plaintiffs' proposed damages subclass (a)) or bullets and projectiles (Plaintiffs' proposed damages subclass (b)), were targeted at certain individuals and spread out over time and space. The Court now examines whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated numerosity, commonality, and predominance with respect to each proposed damages subclass. Proposed Damages Subclass (a) — Gas/Chemical Agents Plaintiffs contend the evidence shows that the individuals exposed to gas or chemical agents number at least in the hundreds out of the estimated 6,000 protestors. They further argue that these individuals' claims for relief require resolving central, common questions as to Defendants' liability and that these common questions predominate over individual issues, satisfying Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3). A review of the video and other evidence reveals that a large number of individuals more than 40 appear to have been exposed to gas or chemical agents, even if in some instances it was inert smoke, and Plaintiffs therefore satisfy the numerosity requirement. As for commonality, the Court need not find that all questions of fact and law be common to the individual class members, t]he existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class. Defendants argue that their use of gas and chemical agents was by different grenadiers exercising individual judgment in response to certain actions by protestors, and each use was targeted at certain groups of individuals. The Court disagrees with Defendants that this case is similar to those and that the factual and legal questions as to PPD's use of gas/chemical agents are too individualized for class certification here. While the grenadiers report that they intended to target certain groups of individuals with their use of force, the very nature of the use of gas is that it is not contained to a certain individual or a small area. The video evidence shows that PPD's use of pepper balls, tear gas, and inert smoke caused large numbers of protestors to disperse. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have satisfactorily demonstrated for the purposes of their Motion that Defendants' actions were likely command decisions, from the initial authorization to use gas and chemical agents, to the unlawful assembly and dispersal announcements, to the later ratification of PPD's actions by its Chief.5 Plaintiffs thus have shown that both factual and legal questions as to the propriety of Defendants' use of gas and chemical agents are common among the proposed class members and predominate over any individual questions. Typicality and Adequacy of Representation Returning to the remaining damages class proposed damages subclass (a) Plaintiffs have satisfactorily demonstrated typicality and adequacy of representation with respect to the named Plaintiffs. Gonzalez Goodman, Guillen, and Travis all claim they were exposed to Defendants' gas/chemical agents and subject to Defendants' dispersal order. Moreover, there is no argument before the Court that the named Plaintiffs have a conflict of interest or that counsel for Plaintiffs are not competent to represent the class. Plaintiffs have therefore shown typicality and adequacy of representation under Rules 23(a)(3) and (4). Because Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court will certify Plaintiffs' proposed subclass (a) of the damages class for a class action. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification The Court certifies Plaintiffs' proposed subclass (a) of the damages class with the modification to the class definition described in this Order, as well as Plaintiffs' proposed injunctive relief class. The Court denies certification of Plaintiffs' proposed damages subclass (b). A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yym3mz7s from Leagle.com Puente, an Arizona nonprofit corporation, Poder in Action, an Arizona nonprofit corporation, Ira Yedlin, individually and as class representatives, Janet Travis, individually and as class representatives, Cynthia Guillen, individually and as class representatives & Jacinta Gonzalez Goodman, individually and as class representatives, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett S. Litt - blitt@kmbllaw.com - Kaye McLane Bednarski & Litt, pro hac vice, Dan Stormer , Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP, 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204, Pasadena, CA 91103, pro hac vice, Darrell Lavar Hill , ACLU, Po Box 17148, Phoenix, AZ, 85011-0148. Indra Neel Chatterjee - nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com - Goodwin Procter, pro hac vice, John C. Washington , Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, 11543 W Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064-1508, pro hac vice, Julia W. Zhang - jzhang@goodwinlaw.com - Goodwin Procter, pro hac vice, Kathleen E. Brody , Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, One Renaissance Square, 2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1450, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Paul L. Hoffman , Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, 11543 W Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064-1508, pro hac vice, Samantha K. McKean , Goodwin Procter LLP, 620 8th Ave, New York, NY 10018-1618, pro hac vice, Sean M. Galvin , Goodwin Procter LLP, , 620 8th Ave, New York, NY 10018-1618, pro hac vice, Shaleen Ameeta Shanbhag , Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP, 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91103, pro hac vice & Martin Lieberman , ACLU, Po Box 17148, Phoenix, AZ, 85011-0148. City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, Jeri L Williams, individually and in their official capacities, Benjamin Moore, individually and in their official capacities, Douglas McBride, individually and in their official capacities, Robert Scott, individually and in their official capacities, Christopher Turiano, individually and in their official capacities, Glenn Neville, individually and in their official capacities, John Sticca, individually and in their official capacities, Lane White, individually and in their official capacities, Jeffrey Howell, individually and in their official capacities & George Herr, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants, represented by Bradley D. Holm , Phoenix City Attorneys Office, David B. Rosenbaum - drosenbaum@omlaw.com - Osborn Maledon PA, Gary Lee Popham, Jr. - glp@manningllp.com - Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP, Joshua Michael Whitaker - jwhitaker@omlaw.com - Osborn Maledon PA, Leslie Steve Tuskai , City of Phoenix Law Department, Mary Ruth OGrady , Osborn Maledon PA, 2929 N Central Ave, 21st Fl. | Phoenix, AZ 85012-2793, Mildred K. OLinn - mko@manningllp.com - Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP, pro hac vice & Nishan Joseph Wilde - njw@manningllp.com - Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Silverberg Says Merger Docs Misleading -------------------------------------------------------- HERBERT SILVERBERG, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC., PAUL MARITZ, MICHAEL S. DELL, EGON DURBAN, WILLIAM D. GREEN, MARCY S. KLEVORN, MADELYN LANKTON, ROBERT MEE, and ZANE ROWE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06977 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2019), is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the Class A common stock of Pivotal against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors, arising out of the failure to disclose material facts relating to the proposed sale of Pivotal in violation of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 22, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with VMware, Inc. and Raven Transaction Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of VMware, providing for the acquisition of Pivotal by VMware. The Merger Agreement provides that Pivotal shareholders will receive $15.00 in cash for each share of Stock that they own immediately prior to the time the merger becomes effective. The Proposed Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including a majority of the outstanding shares of Stock not owned by VMware or any of its affiliates, including Dell Technologies Inc. and EMC Equity Assets LLC, approving the terms of the Merger. On October 10, 2019, to convince Pivotal's shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a proxy statement, with the SEC, on Schedule 14A which fails to disclose material information necessary for Pivotal's stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy Statement incomplete and misleading, the lawsuit says. Pivotal Software is an American multinational software and services company based in San Francisco that provides cloud platform hosting and consulting services.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class are: Takeo A. Kellar, Esq. Michael J. Klein, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 764-2580 Facsimile: (858) 764-2582 E-mail: tkellar@aftlaw.com mklein@aftlaw.com PLURALSIGHT INC: New York Class Action Transferred to Utah ---------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In August 2019, a class action complaint was filed by certain stockholders of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, and certain of the Company's officers alleging violation of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. In October 2019, the action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Pluralsight said, "The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable." Pluralsight, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company provides a platform which offers assessments, learning paths and courses to businesses and individuals seeking to enhance their programming and IT related skill sets. Pluralsights servces customers around the world. The company is based in Farmington, Utah PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Puma North America, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Puma North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10291 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Puma North America Inc. provides apparel goods. The Company offers wholesale distribution of men and boys apparel and furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Suit Moved to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. removes case captioned as PAMELA STEWART, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00048524-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Sept. 13, 2019), from the San Diego Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 23, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02043-DMS-KSC to the proceeding. The complaint alleges causes of action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination; Wrongful Racial Discrimination; Failure to Promote due to Racial Discrimination; Failure to Provide Equal Pay based on Race; and Failure to Provide Rest Periods pursuant to the California Labor Code. Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. A Fortune 500 company, Quest operates in the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico, and Brazil. Quest also maintains collaborative agreements with various hospitals and clinics across the globe.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant are: Max Fischer, Esq. Anahi Gonzalez, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: 213 612 2500 Facsimile: 213 612 2501 E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com anahi.gonzalez@morganlewis.com QUICKEN LOAN: Illegally Sent Telemarketing Texts, Lopez Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. QUICKEN LOAN, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-13340-SC-EAS (E.D. Mich., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA is a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. The Defendant sent automated text message calls to cellular telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff's, which is prohibited by the TCPA, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff says he never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons, who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendant. Mr. Lopez is a Massachusetts resident. The Defendant is in the business of providing mortgage lending services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 4221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Hollywood Firefighters Suit in Minn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MICHAEL G. NEFKENS, and JOSEPH D. RAGAN III, Case No. 0:19-cv-02889 (D. Minn., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought on behalf of persons or entities that purchased shares of Resideo's common stock between October 10, 2018, and October 22, 2019, asserting claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After the close trading on October 22, 2019, Resideo released preliminary financial results for the third quarters, and surprised investors by announcing earnings that significantly missed estimates. The Company also materially reduces its earnings guidance for 2019. The drivers of these disappointing results were the lower sales of thermostats and the performance id the RTS business. In response to these disclosures, the price of Resideo stock fell $5.73 per share, a decline of over 3%. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund is a pension fund established for the benefit of the current and retired firefighters of the City of Hollywood, Florida, and has purchased Resideo common stock at artificially inflated prices. Resideo manufactures home automation products, including smart thermostats and security cameras.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com - and – Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Phone: (954) 916-1202 Email: bob@robertdklausner.com SANOFI-AVENTIS US: MSP Seeks Damages Over Purchase of Zantac ------------------------------------------------------------ MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, a Delaware entity v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem, Inc., Sanofi S.A., Pfizer, Inc., Glaxosmithkline, LLC, Glaxosmithkline, PLC, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-24657-DPG (D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought as a class action on behalf of similarly-situated third-party payors to recover payments unlawfully induced by the Defendants, and to recover the economic harm caused by the Defendants' violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act on third-party payors, who spent billions on purchasing Zantac. Recent revelations by independent researchers have uncovered what will likely go down as one of the gravest public-health fraud in modern time, according to the complaint. Put simply, Zantac is a cancerous poison. When ingested, every tablet (and every dose), produces the toxic carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in the body. NDMA's lone medical use is to cause cancer in animals for laboratory experimentation. The Defendants have been engaged in racketeering activity designed to further the sale of Zantac, both in prescription and over-the-counter forms, the Plaintiff alleges. The racketeering acting activity involved uncountable instances of wired and mail fraud for the purposes of concealing the carcinogenic nature of ranitidine and Zantac. Each Defendant knew of this issue and took active steps to fraudulently conceal the risk from consumers, third-party prayers, doctors, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, says the complaint. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC is a Delaware series limited liability company, who has paid for Zantac. The Defendants manufactured and sold Zantac, an over-the-counter medication, which decreases stomach acid production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andres Rivero, Esq. Jorge A. Mestre, Esq. Alan H. Rolnick, Esq. Charles E. Whorton, Esq. David L. Daponte, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 445-2500 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 Email: arivero@riveromestre.com jmestre@riveromestre.com arolnick@riveromestre.com cwhorton@riveromestre.com ddaponte@riveromestre.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of SmileDirectClub, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. SmileDirectClub, Inc. (NASDAQ:SDC) Class Period: on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 2019 initial public offering Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/smiledirectclub-inc-loss-form?wire=3 The lawsuit alleges that, during the class period, SmileDirectClub, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) administrative personnel, rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company's customers and monitored their progress; (2) as a result, the Company's practices did not qualify as teledentistry under applicable standards; (3) as a result, the Company was subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of dentistry; (4) the efficacy of the Company's treatment was overstated; (5) the Company had concealed these deceptive marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the SmileDirectClub, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] SOUTH HOLLAND HOME: Webster Sues over Biometric Data Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA R. WEBSTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTH HOLLAND HOME, LLC d/b/a HOLLAND HOME SENIOR LIVING and VILLA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2019CH12365 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 24, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data. According to the complaint, when Holland Home or one of Villa Healthcare's other affiliated facilities hires an employee, including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in an employee database shared and maintained by and between Defendants and the affiliate facilities to monitor the time worked by hourly employees. While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendants and their affiliated facilities' employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints 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, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Suprema 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. Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many businesses – such as Defendants -- 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, the lawsuit says. Holland Home is a senior living community that provides a variety of home health care services, including independent living, assisted living, memory care, and respite stays in Illinois. Villa Healthcare is a health care management corporation that manages and operates various health care facilities through primary and specialized clinical programs in six states, including Illinois.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative Class are: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Haley R. Jenkins, 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 hjenkins@stephanzouras.com SSCP PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Polk Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marcia R. Polk, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SSCP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a SNAPBOX STORAGE, Case No. 1:19-cv-04529-MJD (S.D. Ind., Nov. 12, 2019), is brought to address class-wide overtime violations committed by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In connection with its operations, the Defendant employs non-exempt manufacturing employees. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt manufacturing employee. The Plaintiff, the putative class and collective action members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as employees of the Defendant but were not paid all overtime premium compensation owed to them under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a property manager in December 2017. The Defendant owns and/or operates storage facilities in at least 10 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Phone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 Email: kodras@hkmlawfirm.com SUMMIT COUNTY, OH: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Martin Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lavar Martin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. SUMMIT COUNTY, Case No. 5:19-cv-02641-JRA (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 12, 2019), arises from the Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff estimates that he worked on average between 41 and 42 hours per workweek, but was paid for only 40 hours per workweek. He contends that he was not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours that he worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Mr. Martin has been employed by the Defendant as a Detention Officer at the Summit County Juvenile Court since March 2006. Summit County is an urban county in the state of Ohio. The County is responsible for the operation of the Summit County Juvenile Court.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com SURESCRIPTS LLC: Faces Kennebunk Anticompetitive Suit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc., on behalf of itself and all other similarly situation v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC; RELAYHEALTH; and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07445 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought under the Sherman Act to restrain anticompetitive conduct by Surescripts and to remedy the harms of its decade-long anticompetitive scheme. The Plaintiff alleges that Surescripts, the nation's largest provider of "e-prescribing" services, has engaged in a long-running anticompetitive scheme to maintain its monopolies over two separate, complementary markets: (1) electronic prescription routing, and (2) eligibility, which are often collectively referred to as "e-prescribing" services. Routing is the transmission of prescription and prescription-related information from a prescriber (via the prescriber's electronic health record to a pharmacy. Eligibility is the transmission of a patient's formulary and benefit information from a payer (usually the patient's pharmacy benefit manager) to a prescriber's electronic health record (EHR). In 2009, Surescripts had monopolies over routing and eligibility. To neutralize competitive threats, Surescripts took a series of anticompetitive actions to protect and maintain its monopolies, the Plaintiff alleges. This multifaceted anticompetitive scheme has been remarkably successful: despite a massive increase in e prescribing over the past decade, Surescripts has prevented any meaningful competition, maintaining at least a 95% share (by transaction volume) in each market, the Plaintiff contends. Surescripts established pricing protocols that required long-term exclusivity commitments from virtually all its routing and eligibility customers. Surescripts designed its new pricing to ensure that its customers would pay a higher price on all of Surescripts's transactions unless they were "loyal" to Surescripts. Among other things, Surescripts engaged in a long-running campaign of threats and other non-merits-based competition to ensure that no other competitor could get a toehold in either market. Due to the Defendants' ongoing conduct, there is no meaningful competition in the markets for routing or eligibility, the Plaintiff asserts. The decade-long monopolies in these markets have produced predictable effects: higher prices, reduced quality, stifled innovation, suppressed output, and stymied alternative business models. Pharmacies, like the Plaintiff here, typically pay at least 17 cents per routing transaction under Surescripts' monopolistic regime. Surescripts has admitted that competitive prices in the routing market would be between 1 and 3 cents a transaction. Had Surescripts' 1.9 billion e-prescriptions in 2018 been routed at competitive prices instead of monopoly prices, the Plaintiff and the Class would have saved millions of dollars in that year alone, says the complaint. Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc. is a pharmacy located in Kennebunk, Maine. The Plaintiff has paid Surescripts e-prescription routing charges. Surescripts is a for-profit Delaware limited liability company, with its principal place of business located at 2800 Crystal Drive, in Arlington, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. Tyler J. Story WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-346-2222 Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com jnb@wexlerwallace.com tjs@wexlerwallace.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Phone: 207-791-3000 Fax: 207-791-3111 Email: ghansel@preti.com rweill@preti.com msmith@preti.com - and - Eric C. Burns, Esq. ECB LAW LLC 320 Eat Patrick Road Palmyra, PA 17078 Phone: 717-303-6520 Email: eburns@ecblawllc.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-8282 Fax: (215) 496-0999 Email: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com SURESCRIPTS LLC: Monopolizes E-Prescribing Services, Whitman Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerald Whitman d/b/a Whitman Pharmacy, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situation v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC; RELAYHEALTH; and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07448 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought under the Sherman Act to restrain anticompetitive conduct by Surescripts and to remedy the harms of its decade-long anticompetitive scheme. The Plaintiff alleges that Surescripts, the nation's largest provider of "e-prescribing" services, has engaged in a long-running anticompetitive scheme to maintain its monopolies over two separate, complementary markets: (1) electronic prescription routing and (2) eligibility, which are often collectively referred to as "e-prescribing" services. Routing is the transmission of prescription and prescription-related information from a prescriber (via the prescriber's electronic health record to a pharmacy. Eligibility is the transmission of a patient's formulary and benefit information from a payer (usually the patient's pharmacy benefit manager) to a prescriber's electronic health record (EHR). In 2009, Surescripts had monopolies over routing and eligibility. To neutralize competitive threats, Surescripts took a series of anticompetitive actions to protect and maintain its monopolies, the Plaintiff alleges. This multifaceted anticompetitive scheme has been remarkably successful: despite a massive increase in e prescribing over the past decade, Surescripts has prevented any meaningful competition, maintaining at least a 95% share (by transaction volume) in each market, the Plaintiff contends. Surescripts established pricing protocols that required long-term exclusivity commitments from virtually all its routing and eligibility customers. Surescripts designed its new pricing to ensure that its customers would pay a higher price on all of Surescripts's transactions unless they were "loyal" to Surescripts. Among other things, Surescripts engaged in a long-running campaign of threats and other non-merits-based competition to ensure that no other competitor could get a toehold in either market, the Plaintiff alleges. Due to the Defendants' ongoing conduct, there is no meaningful competition in the markets for routing or eligibility, according to the complaint. The decade-long monopolies in these markets have produced predictable effects: higher prices, reduced quality, stifled innovation, suppressed output, and stymied alternative business models. Pharmacies, like the Plaintiff here, typically pay at least 17 cents per routing transaction under Surescripts' monopolistic regime. Surescripts has admitted that competitive prices in the routing market would be between 1 and 3 cents a transaction. Had Surescripts' 1.9 billion e-prescriptions in 2018 been routed at competitive prices instead of monopoly prices, the Plaintiff and the Class would have saved millions of dollars in that year alone, says the complaint. Jerald Whitman d/b/a Whitman Pharmacy is a pharmacy located in Holicong, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff has paid and continues to pay Surescripts e-prescription routing charges. Surescripts is a for-profit Delaware limited liability company, with its principal place of business located at 2800 Crystal Drive, in Arlington, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. Tyler J. Story WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-346-2222 Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com jnb@wexlerwallace.com tjs@wexlerwallace.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelsonlaw.com TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Reiner Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al. On December 12, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint (Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and a former officer. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the period March 3, 2016 through December 5, 2018. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the alleged misconduct of one of the Company's previous Executive Officers. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. Teladoc said, "The Company believes that the claims against the Company and its officers are without merit, and the Company and its named officers intend to defend the Company vigorously, including filing a motion to dismiss the complaint." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections, cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Best Doctors, Inc., a company subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc. On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc. The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to plaintiff and certain other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit and any potential loss is currently deemed to be immaterial. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections, cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. TEXAS PRIDE: Scheve Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers -------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SCHEVE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TEXAS PRIDE FUELS, LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00248 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 23, 2019), alleges that Texas Pride violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay its drivers at time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a workweek. Specifically, it has done so by knowingly permitting its employees to engage in compensable travel time and compensable preparatory and concluding work but nevertheless intentionally failing to pay those employees for all of that travel time or preparatory and concluding work. In addition, the Defendant has paid, and continues to pay, a bi-monthly, non-discretionary safety and performance bonus. However, Defendant fails and refuses to include that bonus amount in calculating its employees' regular rates of pay, the lawsuit says. Daniel Scheve is an individual who resides in Tarrant County, Texas and has been employed by Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA. Texas Pride provides fuel, lubricants and services to the Oil & Gas industry in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. 700 West Summit Drive Wimberley, TX 78676 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com daniel@morelandlaw.com TIMO SUSHI: Faces Tem Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Tem and Clemente Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. TIMO SUSHI & TERIYAKI PLACE INC. d/b/a SUMO TERIYAKI & SUSHI, KUMA NYC INC. d/b/a KUMA NYC, ZZHI XIONG OUYANG, and SUN LUNG WONG, Case No. 1:19-cv-056368 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2019), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were not paid proper minimum wages and overtime compensation throughout their employment with the Defendants, especially for work performed above 40 hours per week. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiffs either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half) or the NYLL overtime rate (of time and one-half) in violation of said laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants to work as dishwashers, porters, and food delivery workers at Sumo Teriyaki. The Defendants owned and operated a Japanses restaurant doing business as "Sumo Teriyaki & Sushi," located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com TNT CABLE: Holts Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erick Holts, on behalf of himself and one behalf of all others similarly situated v. TNT CABLE CONTRACTORS, INC. AND UDEO SERVICES ONE INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-13546 (E.D. La., Nov. 11, 2019), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and their other Technicians appropriate overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Defendants' pay practices and polices applied not only to the Plaintiff, but also to all Class Members. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a Technician since March 2019. TNT is a corporation with its principal business office located in Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George B. Recile, Esq. Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Zachar R. Smith, Esq. CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P. 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Fax: (240) 839-9142 Email: gbr@chehardy.com TSUNAMI RIG: Martinez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Martinez, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. TSUNAMI RIG WASH, LLC d/b/a HINKLIN ENERGY SERVICES, Case No. 7:19-cv-00266 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 11, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff as an independent contractor and paid the Plaintiff and other workers like him, the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Hydrovac hand. The Defendant provides the oil and gas industry with rig washing, tank cleaning, hydro excavation, and vacuum trucking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com TWT 2016: Zhao, et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff ------------------------------------------------------------- Ji Zhuo Zhao and Jian Chang Lin, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TWT 2016 Inc. d/b/a Dim Sum Dynasty, and Qian Zhang a/k/a "Judy" Zhang, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-19263-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., Oct. 23, 2019), alleges Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices by failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each week, and improper retention of tips. The case is an action brought by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees, including kitchen workers, waiters, delivery drivers, delivery packagers, and all other non-exempt employees of the Defendants. Lin was hired as a waiter and a helper who helps packaging delivery, from September 18, 2018 to February 28, 2019. Zhao worked 5 days a week. From Wednesday to Friday, Zhao has the same schedule. He would start working at 11:00 am and get off at 9:30 pm. On Saturday and Sunday, he would start working at 11:00 am, and get off at 10:00 pm. Plaintiff Zhao lives in Brooklyn, and there would be a car driving him and his coworkers from New York to the restaurant. Thus, Plaintiff Zhao worked Fifty-Three and a half (53.50) hours per week, the lawsuit says. Dim Sum Dynasty had gross sales in excess of $500,000 per year. The company has about 15 employees. Among them are 4 kitchen workers, 5 waiters, 6 sushi chefs, 4 delivery drivers, and a delivery packager.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiffs and proposed FLSA Collective are: Qinyu Fan, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: qfan@hanglaw.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Esa Says IPO Documents Misleading ---------------------------------------------------- ELLIE MARIE TORONTO ESA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DARA KHOSROWSHAHI, NELSON CHAI, GLEN CEREMONY, RONALD SUGAR, URSULA BURNS, GARRETT CAMP, MATT COHLER, RYAN GRAVES, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, TRAVIS KALANICK, WAN LING MARTELLO, H.E. YASIR AL-RUMAYYAN, JOHN THAIN, DAVID TRUJILLO, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO., L.L.C., ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., BTIG, LLC, CANACCORD GENUITY LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., AND TPG CAPITAL BD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-580262 (Cal. Super., Oct. 24, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to Uber's initial public offering of its common stock that closed on May 14, 2019. In May 2019, the Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 180 million shares of common stock to the investing public at $45.00 per share, pursuant to the Registration Statement. By the commencement of the action, Uber's shares trade significantly below its IPO price. As a result, investors were damaged. The Registration Statement and Prospectus used by Defendants to effectuate Uber's Offering was false and misleading in that it misled investors with regard to the Company's ballooning losses, stagnating growth rate, and cost-cutting measures that undercut its key growth initiatives, all of which were known to, but concealed by, Defendants at the time of the Offering. The Offering Documents claimed that Uber had a number of significant opportunities to continue to grow its business, including "increasing Ridesharing and Uber Eats category penetration in existing markets, expanding Ridesharing and Uber Eats into new markets, increasing MAPCs and Trips per MAPC, investing in and expanding our New Mobility products, including dockless e-bikes and e-scooters, and investing in and expanding Uber Freight." Defendants also promised to continue to "invest in consumer and Driver rewards programs across our offerings." The statements were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, inter alia, that: -- at the time of the Offering, Uber was rapidly increasing subsidies for customer's rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell; and -- Defendants were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined the Company's central growth opportunities. Uber purports to be a technology company that primarily facilitates access to rides and meals on demand. Uber's shares are listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "UBER."[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Gina Stassi, Esq. Tyson Redenbarger, Esq. CORCHETT, PITREW, & MCCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697 6000 Facsimile: (650) 697 0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com gstassi@cpmlegal.com tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914 2001 Facsimile: (858) 914 2002 E-mail: fbottinni@bottinnilaw.com achang@bottinnilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinnilaw.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Uber Technologies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER) Class Period: on behalf of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Uber securities pursuant and/or traceable to Uber's registration statement issued in connection with Uber's May 10, 2019 initial public stock offering. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 3, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/uber-technologies-inc-loss-form?wire=3 The lawsuit alleges: Uber Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the time of the initial public offering, Uber was rapidly increasing subsidies for customer's rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell; and (2) Defendants were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined the Company's central growth opportunities. To learn more about the Uber Technologies, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Manzini Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled as NICHOLAS A. MANZINI, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 19-27603-CA-22, was removed from the 11th Judical Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Oct. 23, 2019. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-24387-PCH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul C. Huck.[BN] The Plaintiff appear pro se. Attorneys for the Defendant are: Bruno Reategui, Esq. 1111 Brickell Bay Dr., Apt 1011 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (561) 859-9053 - and - Clay Matthew Carlton, Esq. Brian Michael Ercole, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS , BOCKIUS LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 415-3447 Facsimile: (305) 415-3001 E-mail: clay.carlton@morganlewis.com brian.ercole@morganlewis.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Tomlinson Sues Over 2017 Care Guidelines ----------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA TOMLINSON, on her own behalf and on behalf of her beneficiary daughter, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-06999 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2019), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that all UBH members, who were injured by UBH's proven misconduct with respect to the 2017 Level of Care Guidelines will obtain all the relief available to them. The Plaintiff asserts claims over the Defendant's creation of its 2017 "Level of Care Guidelines" and its use of those Guidelines to determine whether mental health and/or substance use disorder--services for which coverage was requested--were consistent with generally accepted standards of care under the ERISA. Ms. Tomlinson is a participant in the S&P Global Inc. Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan sponsored by her employer (the "Tomlinson Plan" or the "Plan"). The Plaintiff's daughter is her dependent and a beneficiary of the Tomlinson Plan, a self-funded plan governed by ERISA. The Plan covers treatment for sickness, injury, mental illness, and substance use disorders. UBH, which also operates as OptumHealth Behavioral Solutions, is a corporation organized under California Law, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. UBH administers mental health and substance use disorder benefits for commercial welfare benefit plans. In this role, UBH administers requests for coverage on behalf of members of health benefit plans governed by ERISA, including the health benefit plans of the Plaintiff and the members of the putative class. The 2017 Level of Care Guidelines at issue were among the UBH Guidelines challenged in two certified class actions pending in this Court: Wit, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, Case No. 14-cv-02346-JCS (N.D. Cal.) and Alexander, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, Case No. 14-cv-05337-JCS (N.D. Cal.). The cases have been consolidated and referred collectively as the "Wit Litigation." Following a trial on the merits of the Wit Litigation, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of this Court found that the UBH Level of Care Guidelines in effect from 2011 through 2017, including the 2017 Level of Care Guidelines at issue, were unreasonable and did not reflect generally accepted standards of care and, thus, conflicted with the relevant terms of the Wit class members' plans. Judge Spero concluded that UBH breached its ERISA fiduciary duties by adopting its pervasively-flawed Guidelines and that UBH abused its discretion when it used the Guidelines to deny coverage to the Wit class members. At the time this Tomlinson complaint is being filed, Judge Spero has not yet issued a remedies order in the Wit Litigation. The three certified classes in the Wit Litigation ("Wit Class") include only UBH members whose requests for coverage were denied by UBH between May 22, 2011, and June 1, 2017. As a result, UBH insureds, like the Plaintiff's daughter, whose requests for coverage were denied by UBH on or after June 2, 2017, based on the defective 2017 Level of Care Guidelines are not members of the Wit Class and will not share in any of the remedies ultimately ordered by the Court in that case--even though UBH continued using its pervasively-flawed 2017 Level of Care Guidelines until May 9, 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 598-3690 Facsimile: (888) 975-1957 E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com - and - D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 Facsimile: (212) 704-4256 E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com creynolds@zuckerman.com UNITED SERVICES: Schlagel Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Erin Schlagel And all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. United Services Automobile Association, the Defendant, Case No. 63CV-19-00677-3, was removed from the Saline County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on Oct. 23, 2019. The Eastern District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00745-JM to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of insurance related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. USAA offers home, life, and auto insurance as well as online banking and investment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Doyle Nalley, Esq. LOVELL, NALLEY AND NALLEY Post Office Box 606 Benton, AR 72018-0606 Telephone: (501) 315-7491 Facsimile: (501) 778-4979 E-mail: johndoylenalley@hotmail.com - and - William G. Horton, Esq. CADDELL REYNOLDS 211 North Second Street Rogers, AR 72765 Telephone: (479) 464-8269 E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Graham Caughman Talley, Esq. Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 688-8853 E-mail: gtalley@mwlaw.com lpruitt@mwlaw.com UNITED STATES: Faces Infusino Case in District of Columbia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States Department of Education et al. The case is captioned as ROBERT J. INFUSINO, EMMANUEL DUNAGAN, KEISHANA MAHONE, and RACHEL DELIBASICH, and JESSICA SCHEIBE, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BETSY DEVOS, In her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Education; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03162-CRC (D. Colo., Oct. 22, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Christopher R. Cooper. The United States Department of Education is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Alexander S. Elson, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 E-mail: alex@nsldn.org UNITI GROUP: Artificially Inflates Stock Price, Safadi Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- IBRAHIM E. SAFADI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UNITI GROUP INC. f/k/a COMMUNICATIONS SALES & LEASING, INC., MARK A. WALLACE and KENNETH A. GUNDERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00756-BSM (E.D. Ark., Oct. 25, 2019), is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Uniti securities between April 20, 2015, and February 15, 2019, inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 26, 2015, Uniti filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing approval of its spin-off from Windstream Holdings, Inc. Simultaneously, Windstream became Uniti's main customer. Uniti now identifies itself as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") specialized in acquisition and construction of essential-to-survival infrastructure in the communications industry. On September 21, 2017, hedge fund Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., the owner of more than 25% of Windstream's unsecured notes due 2023, provided written notice to Windstream that the spin-off of Uniti constituted a sale and leaseback in breach of the notes' indenture. On February 15, 2019, United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman released its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law declaring that Windstream breached the indenture and awarding Aurelius a monetary judgment in the amount of $310,459,959 plus interest. On this news, the price of the Uniti's common stock declined $7.4 from a close of $19.98 per share of Uniti common stock on February 15, 2019, to a close of $12.51 per share of Uniti common stock on February 19, 2019, a drop of approximately 37.39 percent. Over the course of the next three trading days, the price of the Uniti's common stock continued to plummet to close at $9.23 on February 22, 2019, an overall decline of 53.80 percent. The economic loss, i.e., damages, suffered by the Plaintiff and other Class members was a direct result of the Defendants' fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price and the subsequent significant decline in the value of the Company's share, price when the Defendants' prior misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct was revealed, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 7220 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com gnespole@zlk.com UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Tenn. Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In re Unum Group Securities Litigation. Three alleged securities class action lawsuits have been filed against Unum Group and individual defendants as follows: On June 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit entitled Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018. The plaintiff alleges the Company caused its shares to trade at artificially high levels by failing to disclose information about the rate of long-term care policy terminations and long-term care claim incidence resulting in misleading statements about capital management plans and long-term care reserves. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously defend the litigation. On July 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit entitled Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The allegations, class period, and damages claimed mirror those in the Pittman matter. The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously defend the litigation. On July 25, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit entitled City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, Steve Zabel, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded securities between October 27, 2016 and May 1, 2018. The allegations and damages claimed mirror those in the Pittman matter. The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously defend the litigation. On November 9, 2018, the court consolidated the Pittman, Cunningham, and City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System cases into one matter entitled In re Unum Group Securities Litigation, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel, and directed the plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint. On January 15, 2019, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial as well as costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. On March 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Unum said, "These lawsuits are in a very preliminary stage, the outcome is uncertain, and the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. Reserves have not been established for these matters. Although we believe these claims lack merit, an adverse outcome in one or more of these actions could, depending on the nature, scope, and amount of the ruling, materially adversely affect our consolidated results of operations in a period." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum International, Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. USA: Oztimurlenk Files Suit in Fed. Claims Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The case is styled as SENOL OZTIMURLENK, R.N., JOSE PERLATA, R.N., and RICHARD J. WALTERS, R.N., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01715-EGB on Nov. 5, 2019. The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay - Overtime Compensation. The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob Yaakov Statman, Esq. Snider & Associates, LLC (MD) 600 Reisterstown Road, 7th Floor Baltimore, MD 21208 Phone: (410) 653-9060 Fax: (410) 653-9061 Email: jstatman@sniderlaw.com V LIVE DALLAS: Johnson Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. V LIVE DALLAS LLC and DAMON COBBS, Case No. 3:19-cv-02693-N (N.D. Tex., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to recover underpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants violated the FLSA by paying their servers, bartenders, and doorgirls less than the standard federal minimum wage, overtime premium or any additional compensation for working over 40 hours in a workweek, Ms. Johnson alleges. She adds that the Defendants also failed to inform her and her co-workers in advance of the Defendants' use of the tip credit provision of the FLSA. Ms. Johnson was employed by the Defendants as a server, bartender and doorgirl at their location at Dallas, Texas. The Defendants operated several strip clubs named "V Live."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles W. Branham, III, Esq. DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY, LLP 302 N. Market Street, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 722-5990 Fax: (214) 722-5991 Email: tbranham@dobslegal.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Lotus Cannon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com lotus.canon@jtblawgroup.com VICTORIA'S SECRET: Website not Accessible to Blind, Mendez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- HIMELDA MENDEZ AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09864-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019), asserts claims against Defendant for its failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. Because Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Store Gift Card is an electronic promise, plastic card, or other device that is redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated group of merchants that share the same name, mark or logo. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says. The Defendant operates Victoria's Secret retail stores as well retail as stores for various subsidiary companies and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells retail merchandise in the City and State of New York and throughout the world. Defendant is doing business in the State of New York. Victoria's Secret operates multiple retail locations in the State of New York and is one of the largest retailers in the world. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick St., 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 770-3775 Facsimile: (646) 867-2639 E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 VWR INTERNATIONAL: Website not Accessible to Blind, Reid Says ------------------------------------------------------------- VALENTIN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09829 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019), asserts claims against Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website, us.vwr.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. VWR International is an American company involved in the distribution of research laboratory products, with over 1,200,000 items to more than 250,000 customers in North America and Europe. The U.S. division is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Russel Weinrib, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces Camacho Suit in Eastern District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Wendy's Company. The case is captioned as Jason Camacho on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Wendy's Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06027-ENV-PK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano. The Wendy's Company is an American holding company for the major fast food chain, Wendy's. Its headquarters are in Dublin, Ohio.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Darryn G Solotoff, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN G SOLOTOFF PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 695-0052 Facsimile: (212) 656-1845 E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net - and - Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com nyjg@aol.com WHOLE FOODS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Tucker Says --------------------------------------------------------- HENRY TUCKER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09842-RA (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019), asserts claims against Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Defendant operates Whole Foods grocery stores as well as stores for various subsidiary companies and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells groceries and other merchandise in the City and State of New York and throughout the world. Defendant is doing business in the State of New York. Whole Foods operates multiple grocery store locations in the State of New York and is one of the largest retailers in the world. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212 228 9795 Facsimile: 212 982 6284 XPO LOGISTICS: Villatoro et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC et al. The lawsuit involves Defendant-employers' deliberate scheme to misclassify their truck drivers as independent contractors, thereby denying them the fundamental protections due to employees under the California Labor Code. The result of Defendants' misclassification scheme is that Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated truck drivers were, and are, routinely denied payment of all earned wages, including: -- the compensation earned but left unpaid for non-driving work, pursuant to California law's requirement that employees be paid at least the minimum wage for each hour worked; -- the premium wages earned for each day an employee is deprived an uninterrupted, duty-free meal period mandated by California law; -- the premium wages earned for each day an employee is deprived an uninterrupted, duty-free rest period mandated by California law; and -- improper deductions made from drivers' pay for Defendants' own business operational expenses. Instead, Defendants have taken such wages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated truck drivers and unlawfully converted the funds for Defendants' own use and benefit, in order to maximize profits and gain an unfair business advantage over their competitors at the expense of Defendants' own employees. The class action seeks to enjoin the defendants' unlawful conduct, and to obtain restitution of unpaid wages and unlawful deductions made from truck drivers' pay from Defendants, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as EDGARDO VILLATORO, an individual; MANUEL DE JESUS MARTINEZ MEJIA, an individual; and GERALD DANIELS, an individual; on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. XPO LOGISTICS PORT SERVICES, LLC, dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; XPO PORT SERVICES, INC., dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; XPO LOGISTICS, INC. dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware corporation; BUSINESS EXPENSES XPO LOGISTICS, LLC dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware limited liability company; XPO INTERMODAL SOLUTIONS, INC. dba XPO LOGISTICS, an Ohio corporation; XPO INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09199 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2019). The Defendants run a large trucking operation in Southern California.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. Karl P. Evangelista, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF C. JOE SAYAS, JR. 500 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 980 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 291-0088 Facsimile: (818) 240-9955 - and - Julie Gutman Dickinson, Esq. Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq. Hector De Haro, Esq. Kiel Ireland, Esq. BUSH GOTTLIEB, ALC 801 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 950 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 973-3200 Facsimile: (818) 973-3201 ZYNERBA PHARMA: Velayos Sues over Zygel Reports, Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDY VELAYOS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ARMANDO ANIDO, and JAMES E. FICKENSCHER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04959-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Oct. 23, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Zynerba securities between March 11, 2019 and September 17, 2019, both dates inclusive. According to the complaint, Zynerba is developing, among other product candidates, Zygel (ZYN002), a transdermal CBD gel, which is in a Phase II clinical trial for treating children and adolescent patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies ("DEE"); a Phase II/III clinical trial to treat children and adolescent patients with fragile X syndrome; and a Phase II clinical trial for treating children and adolescent patients with autism spectrum disorder. In April 2018, Zynerba initiated the Phase 2 BELIEVE 1 (Open Label Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Zygel Administered as a Transdermal Gel to Children and Adolescents with Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathy) clinical trial ("BELIEVE 1 Trial"), a six-month open label multi-dose clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Zygel in children and adolescents (ages three to seventeen years) with DEE as classified by the International League Against Epilepsy ("ILAE"). Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: -- Zygel was proving unsafe and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE 1 Trial; -- the foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that Zynerba would fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for commercializing Zygel for the treatment of DEE in children and adolescents; and -- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 18, 2019, during pre-market hours, Zynerba issued a press release announcing results from the BELIEVE 1 Trial evaluating topical gel Zygel in children and adolescents with DEE. While Zynerba asserted that Zygel was well-tolerated in the September 2019 Press Release, it also disclosed that, among patients enrolled in the BELIEVE 1 Trial, the rate of treatment emergent adverse events ("TEAEs") was 96%, the rate of treatment related adverse events ("TRAEs") was 60%, and there were ten patients who reported serious adverse events ("SAEs"), of which, "two SAEs (lower respiratory tract infection and status epilepticus) were determined to be possibly related to treatment." On this news, Zynerba's stock price fell $2.46 per share, or 21.77%, to close at $8.84 per share on September 18, 2019. 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 lawsuit says. Zynerba was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Devon, Pennsylvania. The Company was formerly known as AllTranz, Inc. and changed its name to Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In August 2014. Zynerba operates as a clinical stage specialty pharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on developing pharmaceutically-produced transdermal CBD therapies for rare and near-rare neuropsychiatric disorders.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: 212 697-6484 Facsimile: 212 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 37 PI Cases vs. Harsco Corp. Pending in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- At September 30, 2019, there are approximately 37 remaining asbestos personal injury cases in New York County against Harsco Corporation that are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. Harsco 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 September 30, 2019, there were approximately 17,131 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. Of those actions, approximately 16,587 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), approximately 117 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and approximately 427 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 September 30, 2019, 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 37 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 September 30, 2019, the Company has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,216 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 condensed 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-Q is available at https://is.gd/K9zGRM ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39,900 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has 39,900 pending claims related to asbestos-matters as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 151,600 claims by defending, obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately US$557 million through September 30, 2019 and US$545 million through December 31, 2018." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/06DvcM ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $24MM Aearo-Related Claims at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, had accruals of US$24 million as of September 30, 2019, for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies ("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. "As of September 30, 2019, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, coal mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. "As of September 30, 2019, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of US$24 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of Aearo's probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against Aearo approaching the year 2050. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of US$100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/I3f0QH ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $620MM for Respirator Suits at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company had an accrual of US$620 million as of September 30, 2019, for liabilities associated with respirator mask and asbestos cases (excluding those related to Aearo Technologies), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. 3M Co. states, "The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities. The Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and (iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data"). As part of its comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs. The third party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and resolve pending and future claims. The Company uses these estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability. "Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers. "As a result of the settlements-in-principle of the coal mine dust lawsuits, the Company's assessment of other current and expected coal mine dust lawsuits (including the costs to resolve all current and expected coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia), its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, and the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, the Company increased its accruals in the first nine months of 2019 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$337 million, of which US$313 million pre-tax (or US$238 million after tax (US$0.40 per diluted share)) was accrued in the first quarter of 2019. In the first nine months of 2019, the Company made payments for legal defense costs and settlements of US$390 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. "As of September 30, 2019, the Company had an accrual for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of US$620 million. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050. The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of liabilities. "As of September 30, 2019, the Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was US$4 million. The Company continues to seek coverage under the policies of certain insolvent and other insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/I3f0QH ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,770 Claimants at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company remains a defendant in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 1,770 individual claimants as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. "The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty years, the Company has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a jury (including the lawsuits in 2018). In 2018, 3M received a jury verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos fibers. "In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust and awarded compensatory damages of approximately US$2 million and punitive damages totaling US$63 million. "In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company has appealed. During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in principle to settle a substantial majority of the coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for US$340 million, including the US$65 million jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case currently on appeal. "The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/I3f0QH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. still defends itself against 59 asbestos cases pending as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state courts. There were 59 asbestos cases pending as of September 30, 2019. "Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. As of September 30, 2019, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount related to pending claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/701KIa ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit v. J&J Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the Company's motion to dismiss a securities class action related to asbestos matters remains pending. The Company states, "In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing to adequately disclose the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that purchasers of Johnson & Johnson's shares suffered losses as a result. Plaintiffs are seeking damages. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss and awaits the Court's schedule for oral argument. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/6DuStQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Asbestos Claims Are Not Material --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlisle Companies Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that at this time, the amount of reasonably possible asbestos claims, if any, is not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations, or operating cash flows. The Company states, "Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured in limited amounts between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s. In addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek punitive damages. Generally, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements or judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits. At this time, the amount of reasonably possible asbestos claims, if any, is not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations, or operating cash flows, although these matters could result in the Company being subject to monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against earnings in particular periods." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/BGRnuP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops Shareholder Derivative Suit v. J&J --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the shareholder derivative lawsuit filed against the Company related to asbestos matters has been dismissed without prejudice. The Company states, "In October 2018, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson as the nominal defendant and its current directors as defendants in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging a breach of fiduciary duties related to the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that Johnson & Johnson has suffered damages as a result of those alleged breaches. "In September 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the shareholder derivative lawsuit, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/6DuStQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 28,829 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. has 28,829 pending asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019. The Company states, "Of the 28,829 pending claims as of September 30, 2019, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York, approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 300 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 8-K is available at https://is.gd/JjRKUx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. remains a defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits pending in Louisiana state courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "We are one of several unrelated defendants in lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard our drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/BDElSm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1.1BB Noncurrent Liabilities at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dow Inc. recorded Other Noncurrent Liabilities of US$1,087 million related to asbestos matters at September 30, 2019, according to the press release issued by the Company on October 24, 2019, announcing results for the third quarter of 2019. A full-text copy of the Company's Press Release is available at https://is.gd/yFpYCx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Sept 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eaton Corporation plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Company is still subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos. The Company states, "Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims, administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related matters. Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos. Insurance may cover some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/A8J57w ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $161MM Gross Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted asbestos claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$161 million at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$161 million and US$166 million at September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. In determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year period. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase could be significant. "We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. "We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$103 million and US$108 million at September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. We expect that approximately 65% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, US$13 million was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at both September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers. "We believe that, at December 31, 2018, we had approximately US$565 million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy limits potentially applicable to such costs. We had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements. "With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and disease alleged. Recoveries may be limited by insurer insolvencies or financial difficulties. Depending upon the nature of these characteristics or events, as well as the resolution of certain legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by us." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/06DvcM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $562.5MM Liabilities at Sept 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company has total asbestos-related liabilities of US$562.5 million as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company also disclosed that it has total asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries of US$299.6 million as of September 30, 2019. The Company states, "The Company's asbestos insurance receivables related to Ingersoll-Rand Company and Trane were US$178.3 million and US$121.3 million, respectively, at September 30, 2019, and US$141.7 million and US$126.5 million, respectively, at December 31, 2018. The receivable attributable to Trane for probable insurance recoveries as of September 30, 2019 is entirely supported by settlement agreements between Trane and the respective insurance carriers, and approximately 90% of the receivable attributable to Ingersoll-Rand Company for probable insurance recoveries as of September 30, 2019 is supported by settlement agreements between Ingersoll-Rand Company and the respective insurance carriers. Most of these settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane or Ingersoll-Rand Company, as applicable, for specified portions of their respective costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane or Ingersoll-Rand Company, as applicable, agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. "The costs associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims, insurance settlements on asbestos-related matters and the revaluation of the Company's liability for potential future claims are included in the income statement within continuing operations or discontinued operations depending on the business to which they relate. Income and expenses associated with Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos-related matters are recorded within discontinued operations as they relate to previously divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold by the Company in 2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos-related matters are recorded within continuing operations. During the third quarter of 2019, the Company reached settlements with several insurance carriers associated with pending asbestos insurance coverage litigation. As these settlements relate to Ingersoll-Rand Company, they are recorded within discontinued operations. "In 2012 and 2013, Ingersoll-Rand Company filed actions in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants were several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies that had been paying a portion of Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs. The responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses. As of September 30, 2019, Ingersoll-Rand Company has settled with approximately 90% of the insurer defendants, and has dismissed one of the actions in its entirety. "The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded that its Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance receivable is probable of recovery because of the following factors: * Ingersoll-Rand Company has reached favorable settlements regarding asbestos coverage claims for approximately 90% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable; * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to Ingersoll-Rand Company, including Trane, and the success of other companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's favorable settlements; * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and * the Company's history of receiving payments under the Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance program, including under policies that had been the subject of prior litigation. "The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently available information. The Company's actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. "The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired, over many years and from many different carriers, is substantial. However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the considerations, are expected to result in the projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable insurance recovery." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/zKKLYe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Faces Claims at September 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 75 percent of the open and active asbestos-related claims against Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company at September 30, 2019 are non-malignant or unspecified disease claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries and former companies of ours are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of our existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos. "The Company engages an outside expert to perform a detailed analysis and project an estimated range of the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related claims. In accordance with ASC 450, the Company records the liability at the low end of the range as it believes that no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. The methodology used to prepare estimates relies upon and includes the following factors, among others: * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer; * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung cancer claims filed against the Company; * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the Company's claims history; * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease claimed and by year filed; * an analysis of the Company's history to determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims, by type of disease claimed; * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted downward to 1.0% to take account of the declining value of claims resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the future (currently projected through 2053). "At September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, over 75 percent of the open and active claims against the Company are non-malignant or unspecified disease claims. In addition, the Company has a number of claims which have been placed on inactive or deferred dockets and expected to have little or no settlement value against the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/zKKLYe ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Seeks to Nix 2 ERISA Actions over Talc Matters ------------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the defendants in two ERISA class action lawsuits related to asbestos contamination in body powders have filed a motion to dismiss the case. The Company states, "In January 2019, two ERISA class action lawsuits were filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits Committee, and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock as a Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder. Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/6DuStQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Unit Has 1,591 Exposure Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- MSA Safety Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2019, that its subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC ("MSA LLC") was named as a defendant in 1,591 cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 2,493 claims at September 30, 2019. The Company states, "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-Q is available at https://is.gd/reiRKo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 700 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pentair plc's subsidiaries continues to face approximately 700 pending claims related to asbestos matters as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Our subsidiaries and numerous other unaffiliated companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-parties. Each case typically names between several dozen to more than a hundred corporate defendants. Our historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. "As of September 30, 2019, there were approximately 700 claims outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount is not adjusted for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would ultimately reflect our current estimate of the number of viable claims made against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In addition, the amount does not include certain claims pending against third parties for which we have been provided an indemnification." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/fWWz06 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 11,413 Claims at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation has 11,413 unresolved asbestos-related claims at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Corporation's products. "Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. In fact, there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For these reasons and based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience, the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any potential asbestos-related liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/f6DKZn ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,192 million at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Corporation's products. "The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. "The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,192 million at September 30, 2019, and approximately 18 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 82 percent related to future claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/f6DKZn ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $330MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ United Technologies Corporation (UTC) recorded US$330 million as of September 30, 2019, for its estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "...[L]ike many other industrial companies, we and our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of our products or business premises. While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any year. "The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities are based on currently available information and assumptions that we believe are reasonable and are made with input from outside actuarial experts. The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately US$330 million to US$395 million. Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, the minimum is accrued. We have recorded the minimum amount of US$330 million, which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2019. This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims, which will continue to be expensed by the Company as they are incurred. In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$142 million, which is included primarily in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2019. "The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that we believe are reasonable. Our actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes or resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available, the allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect our future liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal legislation. At the end of each year, the Company will evaluate all of these factors and, with input from an outside actuarial expert, make any necessary adjustments to both our estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/dmnMpc ********* 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 ***