/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191122.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 234 Headlines A-BEAUTIFUL POOLS: Underpays Lifeguards, Jones Suit Alleges ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit ADTRAN INC: KSF Reminds of Dec. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ALLEN, TX: Watson Files Petition for Review by Tex. Sup. Ct. ALLIANCE HEALTH: McKinney Sues Over Unlawful Billing Practice ALTRIA GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline ALTRIA GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline AQUA ESCAPES: Underpays Carpenters, Boddie Suit Alleges ASPEN CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Laborers, Arroyo Suit Alleges AT&T INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Wu Suit Says AUSTRALIA: Faces Landmark Class Action Over PFAS Contamination BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Claims in Potje Class Action Dismissed BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit BONNIER CORP: $623K Attorneys Fees in Friske Suit Approved BRITISH COLUMBIA, CA: Class Suit Over Foreign Buyers Tax Rejected BUNGA BUNGA: Ponce Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA CALIFORNIA: G. Jackson May Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Court Rules CAPITAL ONE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of Class Action CARROLS RESTAURANT: Dusich Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Mngrs. CELGENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Still Pending CELGENE CORP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Jan. 6 CHEMOURS COMPANY: KSF Reminds of Dec. 9 Lead Plaintiff Deadline CHEMOURS COMPANY: Pawar Law Reminds of Dec. 9 Plaintiff Deadline COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Faces Ladriye Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Ladriye Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages CORP CAT SA/AUS: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COULTER VENTURES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Braun Says COVETRUS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline COVETRUS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline DEITSCH & WRIGHT: McRay Overshadowing Claim Given Summary Judgment DROPBOX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 3 Deadline ELECTROCORE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial in Nichols Suit to Begin August 2020 ETHAN ALLEN: Faces Camacho Suit Over Breach of Disabilities Act FACEBOOK INC: Financial Services Denied to Women & Old, Says Suit FARFETCH LTD: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Class Action FARMERS GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Petition in Geter Case FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS: Faces Landucci Suit Over Illegal Charges GATES CORP: Court Denies Collective Class Notice in Lundine Suit GC SERVICES: Illegally Calls Elhendi's Phone, TCPA Suit Claims GENERAL MOTORS: Ct. Establishes Case Mgmt. Common Benefit Protocol GENESIS TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bussey Claims GNC HOLDINGS: Camacho Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Ongoing in 2010 Employees Class Action GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit over Aluminum Trades GROUPON INC: 7th Circuit Remands Instagram User's Appeal HUGHES GROUP: Meyers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA IROBOT CORP: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit J.G. WENTWORTH: Avery et al. Allege Illegal Kickback Scheme JMC HOLDINGS: Court OKs $44.75K FLSA Suit Settlement Deal JOE RIZZA: Abad Sues over Biometric Data Collections JOINT UNDERWRITING: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in Ronda RICO Suit KROGER: Customer Files Class Action Over 2018 Shooting LACI TRANS: Stingley et al. Seek Stage-One Conditional Cert. LEGACY HEALTH: Denied Protective Order, Must Respond to Discovery LOWE'S HOME: Blair et al. Seek Proper Separation Benefits MASTERCORP INC: Underpays Housekeepers, Aguirre-Valdivia Says MATCH GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline MDL 2918: Integrity v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Uglem v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Voyager v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MILL-TELL INC: Underpays Repair Technicians, Bell et al. Say MISSION CYCLESPORTS: Botello Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MOM365 INC: Cheng May Attend Hoover Settlement Hearing by Telephone NORTH CAROLINA: Correction Officers Sue DPS, DAC Over Wages NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Brewster Civil Suit Over Right to Vote NORTIS INC: Committee Hires Dillon E. Jackson as Counsel OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Class Action OREGON CHAI: Cosgrove Sues Over Misleading "Vanilla" Packaging OUR TERMS FABRICATORS: Underpays Factory Workers, Alvarado Claims OVERSTOCK.COM: KSF Reminds of Nov. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline PGA INC: Amendment of Schilling Suit Settlement Agreement Ordered PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Filing of Amended Complaint in "Hogan" PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Still Ongoing PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues to Defend Plant Workers Class Suits PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Limited Stay of Discovery Extended Until June PLANTRONICS INC: Bassuk Sues over 37% Drop in Share Price PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES: Removes Bandril Suit to N.D. California PSM HOME HEALTH: Edwards Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages PUMPCO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Lackey Says RAYTHEON COMPANY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action RUHNN HOLDING: KSF Reminds of Dec. 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline RUHNN HOLDING: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit SEALED AIR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit SEMGROUP CORP: Ferrell Asserts Breach of FLSA in Oklahoma SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Still Ongoing SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit Over Sales Practices Still Ongoing SHAKE SHACK: Gift Cards Not Usable by Blind People, Camacho Says SHARON CALLAHAN: Underpays Cosmetologists, Bolden Suit Says SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Carman Suit Arbitration Deal Discovery OK'd SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Tanis Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Refuses to Decertify Class in Quinn Suit STATE COLLECTION: Certification Bid in Thorson Suit Stayed STERICYCLE INC: Settlement of Illinois Suit Wins Final Approval STERICYCLE INC: Settlement Opt-Outs File Own Complaints SUNDIAL GROWERS: Faces Another Suit for Hiding Return of Cannabis SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Action TWITTER INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 30 Plaintiff Deadline TYSON FOODS: Bid to Nix Okla. Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending UNITED INDUSTRIES: Reaches $2.5MM Settlement in Spectracide Suit UNITI GROUP: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stewart Alleges UPSIDE GADING: Cal. App. Dismisses Appeal in Brown Class Suit VALLI PRODUCE: Hill Sues over Biometric Data Collections VIVINT SOLAR: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 11 Deadline VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit VMW INVESTMENTS: Hires Integra Realty as Real Estate Appraiser WAITR HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline WAITR HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 26 Plaintiff Deadline WANDA SPORTS: Faces Fu Suit Over Decline in IPO Share Prices WELLBRIDGE CLUB: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Lee Claims WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Little Suit Set for Dec. 4 WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Shanklin Suit Set for Dec. 4 YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Lewis Class Action Still Pending ZENDESK INC: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action Lawsuit [*] CPA Class Action Against Mortgage Servicer Moves Forward Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Records US$23-Mil. Increase in A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,701 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Defends Mount Vernon Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,710 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $99-Mil. Non-PCC Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $135MM PCC Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $100.1-Mil. Reserve at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,283 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Accrues $5BB from 1993 to Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 890 Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Suits at Sept.30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Faces Stearns PI Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 5,000 Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Subject to PI Claims in Sept ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 192 PI Suits at September 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at Sept. 30 ********* A-BEAUTIFUL POOLS: Underpays Lifeguards, Jones Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A-BEAUTIFUL POOLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04510 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 15, 2019) is an action for non-payment of wages for all hours worked, reimbursement for all unlawful deductions, overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as lifeguard. A-Beautiful Pools, Inc. is a swimming pool management company. It specializes in the operation and supervision of subdivision swimming facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. 4409 Montrose Blvd. Houston, Texas 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Abeona Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: ABEO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 19-cv-10181, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Abeona securities between May 31, 2018 and September 23, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking 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 "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Abeona between May 31, 2018 and September 23, 2019 the class period, you have until January 2, 2020, 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 number of shares purchased. Abeona is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that purports to develop cell and gene therapies for life-threatening rare genetic diseases. Abeona's lead programs include, among other product candidates, EB-101 for the treatment of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa ("RDEB"). EB-101 is an autologous, gene-corrected cell therapy in which the normal COL7A1 gene is inserted into a patient's own skin cells (keratinocytes) and transplanted back to the patient to restore normal Type VII collagen expression and skin function. From preliminary clinical data and expert input, the Company expected EB-101 to be a potential treatment choice for most wounds, and believes it is currently the only product candidate being evaluated as a treatment for larger wounds. Results from a completed Phase I/II study (Phase I/II gene transfer for recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (NCT01263379)) that enrolled seven patients with chronic RDEB wounds at Stanford University purportedly showed that EB-101 was well-tolerated and resulted in significant and durable wound healing. The Phase I/II study purportedly showed significant and durable healing of large chronic wounds, with up to five years of follow-up, with no reported serious adverse events observed. Continuous Type VII collagen expression was purportedly observed for more than two years post treatment, with no detection of replication competent retrovirus ("RCR") up to four years. Abeona expected to initiate a pivotal clinical trial evaluating the potential of EB-101 for the treatment of RDEB in the middle of 2019. The so-called VITAL Study would be a multicenter, randomized, Phase III clinical trial assessing ten to fifteen patients treated with EB-101. The primary endpoint of the study would be the proportion of EB-101 treated wounds with >50% healing at three months, compared with untreated wound site on the same patient. Secondary endpoints would include patient reported outcomes such as pain and itch and investigator global assessment of wounds. 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, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Abeona's Chemical, Manufacturing and Controls ("CMC") and internal controls and procedures and/or compliance policies were inadequate; (ii) as a result, the Company failed to provide sufficient data points on the transport stability of EB-101 to clinical sites, or else such transport stability was insufficient; (iii) consequently, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would reject approval for the start of the VITAL Study until such issues were addressed; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 23, 2019, Abeona issued a press release announcing receipt of a clinical hold letter from the FDA, "clarifying that the FDA will not provide approval for the Company to begin its planned Phase 3 clinical trial for EB-101 [a/k/a, the VITAL Study] until it submits to the FDA additional data points on transport stability of EB-101 to clinical sites" (the "September 2019 Press Release"). The September 2019 Press Release also disclosed that Abeona had been working with the FDA for at least a year to address issues with the Company's CMC. On this news, Abeona's stock price fell $0.39 per share, or 11.96%, to close at $2.87 per share on September 23, 2019. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, 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 E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] ADTRAN INC: KSF Reminds of Dec. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) Class Period: 5/9/2019 - 9/23/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ostk/ Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN) Class Period: ADSs issued either in or after the April 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ruhn/ The Chemours Company (CC) Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cc/ ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-adtn/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] ALLEN, TX: Watson Files Petition for Review by Tex. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ James H. Watson filed petition for review by the Supreme Court of Texas in the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES H. WATSON AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioner v. CITY OF ALLEN, CITY OF AMARILLO, CITY OF ARLINGTON, CITY OF AUSTIN, CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS, CITY OF BALCONES HEIGHTS, CITY OF BASTROP, CITY OF BAYTOWN, CITY OF BEDFORD, CITY OF BURLESON, CITY OF CEDAR HILL, CITY OF CONROE, CITY OF COPPELL, CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, CITY OF DALLAS, CITY OF DENTON, CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, CITY OF EL PASO, CITY OF ELGIN, CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, CITY OF FORT WORTH, CITY OF FRISCO, CITY OF GARLAND, CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, CITY OF HALTOM CITY, CITY OF HUMBLE, CITY OF HURST, CITY OF KILLEEN, CITY OF WATAUGA, CITY LITTLE ELM, CITY OG JERSEY VILLAGE, AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, LLC, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CITY OF MAGNOLIA, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, CITY OF ROANOKE, CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, American Traffic Solutions, Inc., CITY OF AMARILLO, CITY OF ROUND ROCK, CITY OF SUGAR LAND, CITY OF RICHARDSON, CITY OF MESQUITE, STATE OF TEXAS, CITY OF TOMBALL, CITY OF IRVING, CITY OF PLANO, CITY OF HUTTO, CITY OF MARSHALL, CITY OF LONGVIEW, Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc., CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, Respondents, Case No. 19-0995 on Nov. 5, 2019. The Petitioner is represented by: Mr. Russell J. Bowman, Esq. The Respondents are represented by: Mr. George A. Staples Jr., Esq. Mr. Richard M. Abernathy, Esq. Mr. Christopher A. Klement, Esq. Mr. Edwin P. Voss Jr., Esq. Mr. Matthew L. Butler, Esq. Mr. Scott Bounds, Esq. Mr. Eric C. Farrar, Esq. Mr. Kurt Compton Banowsky, Esq. Mr. Thomas J. Williams, Esq. Ms. Lynn E. Carter, Esq. Ms. Victoria W. Thomas, Esq. Brandon Carr, Esq. Mr. Andrew M. Edison, Esq. Ms. Laetitia Coleman Brown, Esq. Mr. Robert J. Davis, Esq. ALLIANCE HEALTH: McKinney Sues Over Unlawful Billing Practice ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael McKinney individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIANCE HEALTH, INC., Case No. CJ-2019-231 (D. Okla., Nov. 18, 2019), arises from the Defendant's billing practice that violates Oklahoma's Consumer Protection Act. On September 27, 2018, the Plaintiff was involved in a car accident that was caused by the negligence of another driver. The Plaintiff sought emergency treatment at Alliance Health Ponca City. Alliance Health advertises itself as a preferred provider facility that accepts most major health insurance plans. At the time the Plaintiff was injured and received his treatment, Alliance Health was a preferred provider of the Plaintiff's health insurance company. Despite being a preferred provider and holding itself out to the public as a preferred provider facility interested in reducing the financial hardship of its patients, Alliance Health did not submit the Plaintiff's medical bills to his health insurance company, according to the complaint. Alliance Health has adopted an undisclosed billing policy when it treats patients involved in accidents cause by the negligence of a third party. Instead of submitting bills to the Plaintiff's health insurer, Alliance Health filed a lien for 100% of its bill against the Plaintiff's potential accident recovery. The Plaintiff contends that Alliance Health's billing policy causes great harm to its patients. Patients pay their health insurance premium to avoid the financial harm that comes with being uninsured. Alliance Health deprived patients the benefit of having health insurance by refusing to submit the patient's bill for payment. The patient is left uninsured due to Alliance Health conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Kay County, Oklahoma. Alliance is a conglomerate of hospitals across Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paige Lee, Esq. 520 S. Knoblock Stillwater, OK 74074 Phone: 405-742-7452 Fax: 405-338-1619 Email: paige@paigeleelaw.com - and - Bradford D. Barron, Esq. THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC PO Box 369 Claremore, OK 74018 Phone: 918-341-8402 Fax: 918-515-4691 Email: bbarron@barronlawfirmok.com ALTRIA GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Covetrus, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVET) Class Period: February 8, 2019 - August 12, 2019 Deadline: November 29, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/cvet The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) overstated Covetrus' capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (2) understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (3) understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein; (4) understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's separation from Henry Schein; and (5) as a result, Covetrus' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO) Class Period: December 20, 2018 - September 24, 2019 Deadline: December 2, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/mo The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (2) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or account for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products; (3) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny, negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL would have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation and operations; and (4) as a result, Altria's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE: COF) Class Period: February 2, 2018 - June 29, 2019 Deadline: December 2, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/cof The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security protections, and its protection did not shield personal information against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Contact: Peretz Bronstein , Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com [GN] ALTRIA GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (WTRH) Class Period: 5/17/2018 - 8/8/2019 including shares acquired in connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/ Altria Group, Inc. (MO) Class Period: 12/20/2018 - 9/24/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mo/ Match Group, Inc. (MTCH) Class Period: 8/6/2019 - 9/25/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mtch/ SmileDirectClub, Inc. (SDC) Class Period: shares issued either in or after the September 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sdc/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] AQUA ESCAPES: Underpays Carpenters, Boddie Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH BODDIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQUA ESCAPES, INC.; and MICHAEL MCKENZIE, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-81550 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2019) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Boddie was employed by the Defendats as carpenter. Aqua Escapes, Inc. provides custom pool and waterfall construction services to commercial and residential customers in the State of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Melissa Scott, Esq. Jake Blumstein, 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 Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com ASPEN CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Laborers, Arroyo Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM ARROYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.; and KRZYSZTOF KACZMARCYK, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05317-JHS (E.D Pa., Nov. 12, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Arroyo was employed by the Defendants as laborer. Apen Construction Services, Inc. is a construction company that provides masonry work on various projects, both commercial and residential. The Company provides brick, block, stucco, siding and roofing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank P. Spada, Esq. Stephen C. Goldblum, Esq. Joseph W. Fluehr, Esq. SEMANOFF ORMSBY GREENBER & TORCHIA, LLC 2617 Huntingdon Pike Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 887-0200 E-mail: fspada@sogtlaw.com sgoldblum@sogtlaw.com jfluehr@sogtlaw.com AT&T INC: Store Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Wu Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHY WU, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. AT&T INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06178 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille so they may 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 alleges. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the Plaintiff contends. 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 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. AT&T Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., #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 AUSTRALIA: Faces Landmark Class Action Over PFAS Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- RNZ reports that up to 40,000 people who live and work on land contaminated by the chemical compound PFAS are suing the Australian government, arguing their property values have plummeted, RN's Law Report can reveal. The action will be filed by Christmas. Shine Lawyers, the firm representing the clients, has enlisted the support of American activist Erin Brockovich. "The science is in on these chemicals. It can cause cancer," Ms. Brockovich tells Law Report. She names "testicular cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid disease, thyroid cancer" as some of those that have been associated with PFAS -- a link confirmed by countries including Germany, Britain and the US, but denied by Australia. Ms. Brockovich is "dumbfounded" by what she considers Australia's inaction on the issue. "Every one of us has a common bond here, about loving the environment and our family -- what we leave, the legacy we leave for our children. We're destroying that and it's heartbreaking," she said. "It's fearful and it should be concerning for all of us." On its website the Department of Defence states that there is "limited to no evidence of human disease or other clinically significant harm resulting from PFAS exposure at this time". However, given the ability of PFAS to persist in humans and the environment, it also recommends that exposure to PFAS be minimised. Ms. Brockovich argues the government's position is inadequate. "They give warnings: don't eat the fish, eat limited fish, don't drink the water - but on the other hand, you're telling people it's safe," she said. "It's an extraordinarily confusing message." What is PFAS -- and why are thousands of people worried about it? PFAS is a collection of synthetic compounds and it looks a little like bubble bath. It is fire retardant and is "very effective at extinguishing jet fuel fires" said Joshua Aylward, lead counsel with Shine Lawyers, who is running the class action. He said between the 1970s and 2000s, the Department of Defence used a significant amount of PFAS, present in firefighting foam, on Defence bases across the country. Eight bases in particular are the subject of the class action. "[PFAS] has leached into the environment and left the boundaries of these bases and entered into the communities, and it's in the rivers and the creeks and the fish and the people," Mr Aylward said. "It's in everything that they test around these bases." He said the communities living around these bases are "really hurting". "The amount of time I've spent with people who are crying because they've found out that their water is contaminated, and they've been drinking it for years; they've found out that their kids have exceptionally high levels in their bloods and they are really concerned for their family," he said. "And then they realise they are trapped. "These people are not wealthy people. They don't own more than one house, most of them. They cannot just pack up and leave. "They can't sell their properties because people won't buy them, and even if they could find someone to buy them, it's for such a little amount of money that many of them couldn't pay out their mortgages on their amount of money they're being offered." Two government inquiries into PFAS have recommended either buying out properties of those who wish to relocate, or providing compensation for residents and businesses in contaminated zones. Mr Aylward said what constitutes "safe" levels of PFAS is a question that garners a different answer, depending on "which government or which scientist you ask". But he argues that Australia is out of line with most of the Western world. "In American and in Europe . . . they have much lower safe levels than what the Australian government is saying at the moment," he said. 'Consumption of eggs is not recommended' The Department of Defence has completed reports in six states and territories that provide significant analysis of human health risks in contaminated areas near Defence bases. In them are findings that vary according to area, including: "Consumption of home-slaughtered livestock is not recommended." "Consumption of eggs is not recommended." "The ingestion of water during outdoor activities with impacted bore water" presents risks that are "elevated for children only". Reannan Haswell, a client in the action, lives in a contaminated area in Bullsbrook, Western Australia. The Department of Defence has alerted her to the fact that the home she shares with her partner and their three children aged between five and 16, has a contaminated water supply, something she says has "changed our whole way of life". She said she would like to move but can't get the necessary financial approval to borrow from a bank, which she said is a direct result of the contamination. "We're stuck. We can't sell [the house]; banks aren't lending to people to buy in the area," Ms Haswell said. Besides, she said "morally, you don't want to sell it to another family because then they'll be going through exactly what you're going through". She and her partner are "at a bit of a loss". "It's a burden," Ms. Haswell said. "You wouldn't think to stop your kids playing in the sprinkler. You wouldn't think to [not] put up a little inflatable pool when it's 40-odd degrees outside and let them have fun. But these are the things we've stopped doing. "We don't have our kids' birthday parties at our home anymore because we know that we're putting other people's children at risk. Sleepovers, those basic general kids' rite of passage, are things we've had to really seriously think about." She describes living with contaminated water as "like camping in your own house". "You've got your boxes, you brush your teeth with your cup of water, you rinse with your cup of water -- it's not what life should be." 'We have to do better' Back in the 1990s, Ms. Brockovich took on a big corporation over the use of toxic chemicals; a fight later immortalised in a Hollywood film. Since then, she said, we haven't come far enough in dealing with toxic contamination. She argues that "antiquated mentalities . . . that these chemicals can't hurt us won't carry us into the future". "We have to do better . . . governments need to rise up," Ms. Brockovich said. "It's so frustrating. All these years after the film and these issues are more in our face and more relevant today than they were back then." Ms. Brockovich holds out hope for a more productive conversation in which, rather than "finger-pointing", we can "find solutions to begin to fix the issue". "It can be done. It feels daunting and it is daunting, and we'll never get anywhere if we keep hiding and we have no transparency and no trust that true information is being given to the people," she said. "Otherwise we're sitting ducks." In a statement, a Defence spokesperson acknowledged separate class actions currently underway in the Federal Court over PFAS contamination: in Williamtown, NSW; Oakey, Queensland; and Katherine in the Northern Territory. The spokesperson said the department "is aware that some law firms have been investigating potential class actions in relation to other Defence sites". "At this time, no formal documentation has been served on the Commonwealth in relation to any other Defence site," the spokesperson said. The spokesperson added: "Defence is working closely with the PFAS Taskforce in the Department of the Environment and Energy, which is coordinating the whole-of-government response to PFAS, including the responses to inquiries conducted by the Parliament. "PFAS is a national issue facing a number of sites outside of Defence across Australia." [GN] BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Claims in Potje Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has entered an order granting summary judgement in favor of Bluegreen and dismissing all claims in the class action suit initiated by Stephen Potje, Tamela Potje, Sharon Davis, Beafus Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin, Arnor Lee, Angela Lee, Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada, Emily Estrada, Michael Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters, Elaine Walters, and Mike Ericson. On September 22, 2017, Potje et al., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the company which asserted claims for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida False Advertising Law. In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false representations in connection with the company's sales of vacation ownership interests (VOIs). The purported class action lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice after mediation. However, on or about April 24, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their individual claims in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Subsequently on October 15, 2019, the Court entered an order granting summary judgement in favor of Bluegreen and dismissed all claims. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit initiated by Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael have mediated and agreed to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On February 28, 2018, Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael filed a purported class action litigation in San Bernardino Superior Court against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU). The central claims in the complaint, as amended during June 2018, include alleged failures to pay overtime and wages at termination and to provide meal and rest periods, as well as claims relating to non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses; and a claim under the Private Attorney's General Act. Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of approximately 660 hourly, non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California since March 1, 2014. In April 2019, the parties mediated and agreed to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. Bluegreen said, "It is expected that the court will approve the settlement and the dismissal of the lawsuit after the settlement documents are executed." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC. BONNIER CORP: $623K Attorneys Fees in Friske Suit Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, has granted attorneys' fees request in the class complaint captioned REBECCA FRISKE, Plaintiff, v. BONNIER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-12799, (E.D. Mich.). In the Friske class suit, the District Court granted final approval of a class-wide settlement in September 2019. One component of that settlement was the authorization for class counsel to file a motion requesting the Court to authorize payment of up to $623,500, or 29 percent of the settlement fund, for attorney's fees and costs associated with the action. Upon consideration, the District Court grants the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees. Class counsel shall receive $623,500, which includes compensation for attorney's fees and litigation expenses. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order at https://tinyurl.com/yyjqqnd9 from Leagle.com Rebecca Friske, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel O. Myers , The Law Offices of Daniel O. Myers, 818 Red Dr Ste 210 Traverse City, MI, 49684-4730, Gary Lynch – glynch@carlsonlynch.com - Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP & Jamisen A. Etzel – jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela and Carpenter LLP. Bonnier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Stabile - DStabile@shutts.com - Shutts & Bowen LLP, Francis A. Zacherl - FZacherl@shutts.com - Shutts Bowen LLP & John J. Gillooly, Garan Lucow,1155 Brewery Park Boulevard Suite 200Detroit, MI 48207 BRITISH COLUMBIA, CA: Class Suit Over Foreign Buyers Tax Rejected ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Proctor, writing for CBC News, reports that a B.C. Supreme Court judge has rejected a Chinese woman's bid to certify a class action lawsuit against a foreign buyers tax designed to tackle the province's housing affordability crisis. Justice Gregory Bowden dismissed Jing Li's claim after finding that the 20 per cent tax levied against foreign purchasers of residential property in B.C.'s hottest housing markets does not discriminate against either Asian or Chinese buyers. In a 43-page decision released October 25, Bowden found that the tax draws distinctions based on citizenship - not ethnic or national origin. And that people who don't have Canadian citizenship, including Chinese nationals, don't have to pay the tax if they are permanent residents or provincial nominees. "The structure of the tax is not responsible for any unequal burden on Asian persons," Bowden wrote. "It is not a numbers game. Buyers from Asian countries, such as China, receive equal treatment that is proportionate to the demand from those countries." Landmark trial The judge's decision comes after a landmark summary trial held to determine the fate of legislation the previous Liberal government introduced in 2016 in order to cool an overheated Lower Mainland housing market. The tax initially required foreign entities (including foreign nationals) to pay an additional 15 per cent on the purchase of residential property in Greater Vancouver. The current NDP government increased the tax to 20 per cent in February 2018 and expanded the reach of the tax to include the Fraser Valley, Capital Regional District, Nanaimo Regional District and the Central Okanagan. Li moved to Canada from China in 2013 to complete a master's degree in public administration. She entered into a contract to buy a half-million dollar condo in Burnaby in July 2016, the month before the tax came into effect. Her closing date was in November, which meant she would have to pay an additional $83,850 as she was neither a permanent resident nor a Canadian citizen. Undisputed housing affordability problem The case was decided through a summary trial in which both Li and the government argued the case through written affidavit evidence and expert reports from an array of academics who have been among the most widely quoted voices on the housing crisis in the past decade. "It is not disputed that there has been a housing affordability problem in the [Greater Vancouver Regional District] for a number of years," Bowden wrote. "Home ownership in Vancouver became less affordable than all other cities in Canada. Vancouver had become one of the most unaffordable real estate markets in the world." The judge explained that the provincial government decided to follow in the footsteps of jurisdictions including Hong Kong, Singapore, Israel and Australia in implementing a foreign buyers tax. "Local factors did not appear responsible for the inflation of housing prices and public commentary pointed to foreign demand," Bowden wrote. Overwhelming support among Asians Li argued against the tax on a number of different grounds. She claimed that the province was trying to usurp federal powers over immigration and citizenship. And she also accused the province of violating Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against discriminating on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin or colour. The judge found that the tax was intended to "dampen demand" and discourage foreign nationals from purchasing real estate. He said it was designed to make the local housing market more affordable without denying non-Canadian citizens the opportunity to own, rent or lease housing. He also rejected Li's claim that the tax perpetuates prejudice, stereotyping or disadvantages of Chinese people in B.C. "It is also notable that there was overwhelming support for the tax among Asians living in Greater Vancouver," Bowden wrote, citing the research of urban studies professor Andrew Yan. "Professor Yan states that Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Chinese descent are equally impacted by housing affordability and equally will benefit from any measures that improve affordability." [GN] BUNGA BUNGA: Ponce Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Ponce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BUNGA BUNGA LLC, a domestic limited-liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-02002 (D. Nev., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for the recovery of unpaid wages, liquidated damages and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. The Defendant willfully and intentionally violated the FLSA by requiring tipped employees to participate in an invalid tip pool in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Defendant is also in violation of the FLSA, which forbids "kickbacks" of wages. The actions of the Defendant violated the FLSA by receiving a portion of the tips earned by tipped employees because tips are the property of the employee, who received the tip, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server at its restaurant. BUNGA BUNGA LLC operates restaurants in the Las Vegas, Nevada area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq. LAGOMARSINO LAW Henderson, NV 89052 Phone: (702) 383-2864 Fax: (702) 383-0065 Email: AML@lagomarsinolaw.com CALIFORNIA: G. Jackson May Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Court Rules ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order granting Jackson's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in the case captioned ZURI S. YOUNG and GEORGE LOVIN JACKSON, Plaintiffs, v. RALPH M. DIAZ, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-983-JAM-EFB P., (E.D. Cal.). State prisoners Young and Jackson commenced the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action without the assistance of counsel against Ralph Diaz of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. They sought to proceed in forma pauperis, but only Plaintiff Jackson filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a copy of his trust fund account statement. Plaintiffs may only jointly proceed in forma pauperis if both submit a properly-supported application. Subsequently, however, Plaintiff Young submitted a motion for class certification wherein he stated that, owing to previous Prison Litigation Reform Act "strikes" he has sustained, only Jackson is qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. Young may not avoid the three strikes provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act in that manner, the Court notes. Upon review, Judge Brennan rules that: 1. Jackson's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 2. Jackson will pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 3. Jackson's individual claims, as explained supra, are dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff may but is not obligated to amend his complaint. 4. However, failure to file an amended complaint that complies with the order will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for the reasons stated herein. Furthermore, it is recommended that: 1. The motions for class certification be DENIED; 2. All class action claims be DISMISSED without prejudice; and 3. Young's individual claims be DISMISSED without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order is available at at https://tinyurl.com/y5ee3tnt from Leagle.com Zuri S. Young, Plaintiff, pro se. George Lovin Jackson, Plaintiff, pro se. CAPITAL ONE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Covetrus, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVET) Class Period: February 8, 2019 - August 12, 2019 Deadline: November 29, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/cvet The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) overstated Covetrus' capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (2) understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (3) understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein; (4) understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's separation from Henry Schein; and (5) as a result, Covetrus' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO) Class Period: December 20, 2018 - September 24, 2019 Deadline: December 2, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/mo The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (2) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or account for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products; (3) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny, negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL would have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation and operations; and (4) as a result, Altria's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE: COF) Class Period: February 2, 2018 - June 29, 2019 Deadline: December 2, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/cof The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security protections, and its protection did not shield personal information against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Contact: Peretz Bronstein , Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com [GN] CARROLS RESTAURANT: Dusich Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Mngrs. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Dusich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARROLS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., and CARROLS LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01974-JEJ (M.D. Pa, Nov. 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 on behalf of all current and former assistant managers. The Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours in a workweek while employed by the Defendants in order to complete job duties. However, in accordance with the Defendants' policy, pattern, and/or practice, the Plaintiff and others were misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation and were not paid at the mandated rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an AM at a Burger King restaurant in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Carrols owns and operates, directly and through its wholly owned subsidiary Carrols LLC, more than 800 franchised "Burger King" restaurants throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 CELGENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit in New Jersey remains pending. On March 29, 2018, the City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System filed a putative class action against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod. On May 3, 2018, a similar putative class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers was filed by Charles H. Witchcoff in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod. On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative class. On October 9, 2018, the court entered a scheduling order which requires lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December 10, 2018; defendants to file their motion to dismiss the amended complaint by February 8, 2019; lead plaintiff to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss by April 9, 2019; and defendants to file their reply by May 9, 2019. On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint. On February 8, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint in full; the plaintiff filed its opposition on April 9, 2019, and defendants filed their reply on May 9, 2019. Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. Celgene Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey. CELGENE CORP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Jan. 6 -------------------------------------------------------- Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement in the class action suit related to the sales of Thalomid(R) and Revlimid(R) is scheduled for January 6, 2020. On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the company violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of the company's THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products, and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third-party payers, is seeking injunctive relief and damages. In February 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint, and upon the filing of a similar putative class action making similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence), the parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB’s complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's complaint. In October 2015, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss on all grounds. The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs - International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives' Endowment Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell. Plaintiffs added allegations that our settlements of patent infringement lawsuits against certain generic manufacturers have had anticompetitive effects. Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB and Providence cases and, on August 1, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of IUB, Providence, Local 39, DEA and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filed another complaint, which it identified as related to the consolidated case, and which made similar allegations on behalf of an additional asserted class representative, New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund (NEC). The NEC action has been consolidated with the original action involving IUB, Providence, DEA, Local 39 and Mitchell into a master action for all purposes. On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. On February 26, 2018, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 2, 2018, and the company filed its reply on April 13, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their class certification motion on May 18, 2018. Fact discovery in these cases closed on May 17, 2018 and expert discovery closed on December 11, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Celgene’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. On December 14, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification. The company's opposition to Plaintiff's new motion for class certification was filed on January 25, 2019, and the plaintiffs' reply in support of their new motion for class certification was filed on February 15, 2019. In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement amount was not materially different than the amount we had previously accrued for this matter. On August 1, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On August 22, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to distribute notice to the settlement class, to appoint a notice and claims administrator, and for approval of the plan allocation. A fairness hearing on the settlement is scheduled for January 6, 2020. Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. Celgene Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey. CHEMOURS COMPANY: KSF Reminds of Dec. 9 Lead Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) Class Period: 5/9/2019 - 9/23/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ostk/ Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN) Class Period: ADSs issued either in or after the April 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ruhn/ The Chemours Company (CC) Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cc/ ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-adtn/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] CHEMOURS COMPANY: Pawar Law Reminds of Dec. 9 Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of The Chemours Company (NYSE:CC) from February 16, 2017 through August 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for The Chemours Company investors under the federal securities laws. 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 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To express an interest in the class action, go to http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/the-chemours-company/or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had not appropriately accounted and accrued reserves for its environmental liabilities; (2) the possibility of costs exceeding accrued amounts was not "remote"; and (3) as a result, Chemours' 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. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Attorney advertising. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1210 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN] COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Faces Ladriye Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL LADRIYE; and JOE BANKS, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONALS INC., a Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a TRIMAC OUTDOOR; TODD MURPHY, Individually; and JOSH FLETCHER, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01247-HLA-MCR (M.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants overtime pay, including unpaid back wages, additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for TRIMAC in Clay County, Florida. The Plaintiffs contend that those similarly situated to them also worked similar hours, and performed similar duties for the Defendants, but also were not paid any overtime premiums for hours over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants' actions were willful and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA, the Plaintiffs assert. They add that due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, suffered and continue to suffer damages and lost compensation for time. Trimac provides landscaping services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5369 Facsimile: (954)-327-3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Ladriye Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL LADRIYE; and JOE BANKS, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONALS INC., a Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a TRIMAC OUTDOOR; TODD MURPHY, Individually; and JOSH FLETCHER, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00807-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants overtime pay, including unpaid back wages, additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for TRIMAC in Clay County, Florida. Those similarly situated to Plaintiffs also worked similar hours, and performed similar duties for the Defendants, but also were not paid any overtime premiums for hours over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' actions were willful and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA. Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, suffered and continue to suffer damages and lost compensation for time. Trimac provides landscaping services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5369 Facsimile: (954)-327-3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com CORP CAT SA/AUS: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORP. CAT. SA/AUS, LLC, and JUAN FLORES, Case No. 5:19-cv-01350 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of their failure to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly employees overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours a week; however, the Defendants would not compensate the Plaintiff for all of her time worked over 40 hours a week and they required that some overtime work be done off the clock, says the complaint. As a direct result of the Defendants' policies, even though the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid managers worked more than 40 hours in many weeks that they worked for the Defendants during time period relevant to this Complaint, they were not compensated for all of their overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a manager from February 2018 until September 2019. Corp. Cat. SA/AUS, LLC is a domestic limited liability company, providing catering services in the San Antonio area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com COULTER VENTURES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Braun Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Lee Braun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC, DBA ROGUE FITNESS, Case No. 2:19-cv-05050-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 18, 2019), accuses the Defendant of failing to compensate employees for all hours worked and for the correct amount of overtime pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Defendant does not calculate, as part of the Plaintiff's and Putative Plaintiffs' workweek, the time they spend on the tasks integral and indispensable to their principal activity, pre-shift and post-shift, in violation of federal and state wage laws, according the complaint. Further, when the addition of the unpaid time is added to the Plaintiff's hours for the workweek, the Defendant willfully fails to pay him for the additional time at one-and-one-half times his regular rate in violation of federal and state wage laws. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in its assembly department on September 27, 2019, was moved to the warehouse department as a picker on October 15, 2019, and is currently employed in that department as of the filing of this complaint. Coulter Ventures, LLC, dba Rouge Fitness, is an Ohio limited liability company that manufactures and supplies fitness equipment locally and around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jessica R. Doogan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (800) 274-5297 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - John S. Marshall, Esq. Helen M. Robinson, Esq. Edward R. Forman, Esq. Samuel M. Schlein, Esq. MARSHALL AND FORMAN, LLC 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 480 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 463-9790 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: jmarshall@marshallforman.com hrobinson@marshallforman.com eforman@marshallforman.com sschlein@marshallforman.com - and - Louis A. Jacobs, Esq. 177 19th St., Apt. 9C Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (614) 203-1255 Facsimile: (510) 250-9007 Email: LAJOhio@aol.com COVETRUS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Covetrus, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVET) Class Period: February 8, 2019 - August 12, 2019 Deadline: November 29, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/cvet The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) overstated Covetrus' capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (2) understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (3) understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein; (4) understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's separation from Henry Schein; and (5) as a result, Covetrus' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO) Class Period: December 20, 2018 - September 24, 2019 Deadline: December 2, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/mo The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (2) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or account for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products; (3) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny, negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL would have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation and operations; and (4) as a result, Altria's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Capital One Financial Corporation (NYSE: COF) Class Period: February 2, 2018 - June 29, 2019 Deadline: December 2, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/cof The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security protections, and its protection did not shield personal information against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Contact: Peretz Bronstein , Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com [GN] COVETRUS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of ECOR, CVET, and DBX. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414. electroCore (NASDAQ: ECOR) CLASS PERIOD: 06/19/2018-09/25/2019 LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 25, 2019 Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (ii) that, as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over existing treatments; (iii) that the Company's voucher program was not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (iv) that the Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (v) that the Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (vi) that the Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore; (vii) that the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; (viii) that the Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; (ix) that, as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use of gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (x) that, 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 get additional information about the electroCore Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Covetrus (NASDAQ:CVET) CLASS PERIOD: 02/08/2019-08/12/2019 LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 29, 2019 Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) they had overstated Covetrus capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (ii) they had understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) they had understated Covetrus separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) they had understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's separation from Henry Schein. To get additional information about the Covetrus Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Dropbox Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX) LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 3, 2019 Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Dropbox had materially overstated its ability to monetize its user base; (2) Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends that were negatively impacting the Company at the time of the IPO; (3) Dropbox was tracking below its internal revenue and monetization targets at the time of the IPO; and (4) as a result, defendants statements about Dropbox's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. To get additional information about the Dropbox Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: http://www.bernlieb.com/ Tel: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] DEITSCH & WRIGHT: McRay Overshadowing Claim Given Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned DESSERI McCRAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEITSCH & WRIGHT, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-731-EAK-SPF. (M.D. Fla.). Deitsch & Wright, P.A. is a Florida-based law firm. In October 2017, Deitsch sent Lead Plaintiff Desseri McCray a collection letter in an attempt to collect on a $1,734.75 debt McCray incurred after receiving personal medical services from Excel Medical Imaging, P.L. McCray sued Deitsch on behalf of herself and the class on March 27, 2018, alleging Deitsch's collection letters violated sections 1692g(b) and 1692e(10) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Of the claims that remain, Count I of the complaint alleges that the letters' threats of "additional action" and demands for immediate resolution and prompt payment "overshadowed" the class plaintiffs' rights to dispute and request verification of the debts in violation of section 1692g(b) ("Overshadowing claim"). Count II alleges that Deitsch's threats of "additional action" were false, and that Deitsch's representation that Excel had authorized Deitsch to use any legal means necessary to collect the debts if payment was not promptly remitted conveyed a "false sense of urgency" in violation of section 1692e(10) ("False Sense of Urgency claim"). On April 18, 2019, the Court certified the following class: All individuals in the State of Florida to whom Defendant Deitsch & Wright, P.A. sent, between March 27, 2017, and March 27, 2018, and in an attempt to collect a debt, a collection letter based on the same template used to create the collection letter sent to Plaintiff Desseri McCray. On October 26, 2018, the Court denied Deitsch's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to McCray's False Sense of Urgency claim and determined the claim should be put to a jury. On February 11, 2019, the Court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of McCray as to her Overshadowing claim. The Court declined to direct the entry of final judgment in McCray's favor on that claim, however, finding that just reason for delay existed. Id. Additionally, because at that point the Court had yet to certify the putative class, the Court's order applied only to McCray individually. McCray now moves for final summary judgment on both her Overshadowing and False Sense of Urgency claims. Specifically, with respect to her Overshadowing claim, McCray seeks summary judgment in favor of the rest of the class now that the class has been duly certified. With respect to her False Sense of Urgency claim, notwithstanding the Court's prior determination that the claim should be put to a jury, McCray seeks summary judgment in favor of the entire class because "[d]iscovery has revealed that [Deitsch] made indisputably false representations in its letters to [McCray] and the class." On review, the Court finds that the undisputed facts establish that Deitsch is liable to each of the other 93 class members for violations of section 1692g(b), and that the rest of the class is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on McCray's Overshadowing claim. Accordingly, McCray's motion is GRANTED as to Count I of the complaint, the Court rules. However, the Court declines to deviate from its prior determination that McCray's False Sense of Urgency claim should be put to a jury. McCray's motion is DENIED as to Count II of the complaint, the Court orders. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y65o8f4n from Leagle.com Desseri McCray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex D. Weisberg -- aweisberg@afclaw.com -- of Weisberg Consumer Law Group, PA & Amorette Rinkleib -- arinkleib@thompsonconsumerlaw.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC, pro hac vice. Deitsch and Wright, P.A., Defendant, represented by Meredith A. Chaiken -- meredith@granerlaw.com -- Graner Platzek & Allison, P.A., Steven Daniel Eisenband -- sde@granerlaw.com -- of Graner Platzek & Allison, P.A. & Steven Platzek , Graner Platzek & Allison, P.A. DROPBOX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 3 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of ECOR, CVET, and DBX. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414. electroCore (NASDAQ: ECOR) CLASS PERIOD: 06/19/2018-09/25/2019 LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 25, 2019 Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (ii) that, as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over existing treatments; (iii) that the Company's voucher program was not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (iv) that the Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (v) that the Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (vi) that the Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore; (vii) that the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; (viii) that the Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; (ix) that, as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use of gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (x) that, 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 get additional information about the electroCore Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Covetrus (NASDAQ:CVET) CLASS PERIOD: 02/08/2019-08/12/2019 LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 29, 2019 Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) they had overstated Covetrus capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (ii) they had understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) they had understated Covetrus separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) they had understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's separation from Henry Schein. To get additional information about the Covetrus Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Dropbox Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX) LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 3, 2019 Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Dropbox had materially overstated its ability to monetize its user base; (2) Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends that were negatively impacting the Company at the time of the IPO; (3) Dropbox was tracking below its internal revenue and monetization targets at the time of the IPO; and (4) as a result, defendants statements about Dropbox's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. To get additional information about the Dropbox Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: http://www.bernlieb.com/ Tel: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] ELECTROCORE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of ECOR, CVET, and DBX. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414. electroCore (NASDAQ: ECOR) CLASS PERIOD: 06/19/2018-09/25/2019 LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 25, 2019 Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (ii) that, as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over existing treatments; (iii) that the Company's voucher program was not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (iv) that the Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (v) that the Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (vi) that the Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore; (vii) that the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; (viii) that the Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; (ix) that, as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use of gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (x) that, 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 get additional information about the electroCore Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Covetrus (NASDAQ:CVET) CLASS PERIOD: 02/08/2019-08/12/2019 LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 29, 2019 Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) they had overstated Covetrus capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (ii) they had understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) they had understated Covetrus separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) they had understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's separation from Henry Schein. To get additional information about the Covetrus Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Dropbox Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX) LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 3, 2019 Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Dropbox had materially overstated its ability to monetize its user base; (2) Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends that were negatively impacting the Company at the time of the IPO; (3) Dropbox was tracking below its internal revenue and monetization targets at the time of the IPO; and (4) as a result, defendants statements about Dropbox's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. To get additional information about the Dropbox Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: http://www.bernlieb.com/ Tel: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial in Nichols Suit to Begin August 2020 ------------------------------------------------------------ Encompass Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that court has scheduled the trial to begin August 10, 2020, in the class action suit captioned as Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. In July 2019, the company entered into settlement agreements with all but one plaintiff and paid those settling plaintiffs an aggregate amount of cash less than $0.1 million. The remaining plaintiff alleges that the company, some of its former officers, and its former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent the company's earnings and financial position. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005. However, the complaint has been amended from time to time, including to request certification as a class action. Additionally, one of the former officers named as a defendant has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court. The company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. On December 10, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted the company's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's dismissal on March 23, 2018. On April 6, 2018, the company filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court. On March 22, 2019, the Alabama Supreme Court denied the company's application for rehearing and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The court has scheduled the trial to begin August 10, 2020. Encompass Health said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case against the sole remaining plaintiff. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case." Encompass Health Corporation provides facility-based and home-based post-acute healthcare services in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Inpatient Rehabilitation, and Home Health and Hospice. The company was formerly known as HealthSouth Corporation and changed its name to Encompass Health Corporation in January 2018. Encompass Health Corporation was founded in 1983 and is based in Birmingham, Alabama. ETHAN ALLEN: Faces Camacho Suit Over Breach of Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ethan Allen Interiors Inc. The case is captioned as Jason Camacho, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Ethan Allen Interiors Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06171-ENV-RLM (E.D.N.Y., Oct 31, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 695-0052 Facsimile: (212) 656-1845 E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net FACEBOOK INC: Financial Services Denied to Women & Old, Says Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ahiza Garcia, writing for CNN Business, reports that Facebook is facing a proposed class action lawsuit for allegedly denying people financial services products based on age and gender. A complaint filed October 31 in a federal district court in San Francisco alleges that financial services ads on Facebook were targeted away from women and older people over the past three years. The complaint defines older people as those who are at least 40 years old. It seeks to bar Facebook and advertisers from excluding older persons and women from receiving ads for financial services such as bank accounts, loans, insurance coverage, and investments. In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson said: "We're reviewing the complaint. We've made significant changes to how housing, employment and credit opportunities are run on Facebook and continue to work on ways to prevent potential misuse. Our policies have long prohibited discrimination and we're proud of the strides we're making in this area." Facebook's advertising platform has faced continued scrutiny over whether it enables discrimination by allowing advertisers to target their desired audience using tools that filter based on certain characteristics. The lawsuit was filed by a 54-year-old woman, Neuhtah Opiotennione, who will seek class action status to include older and female Facebook users nationwide who were allegedly denied financial services ads because marketers were allowed to target an audience based on age. According to the suit, Facebook hasn't taken any steps to prevent financial services advertisers from excluding based on age or gender. It notes the one exception to this exclusion is advertising for credit opportunities. The suit alleges that Facebook violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which states that all people in the state, regardless of sex, race, medical condition or other characteristics, are entitled to "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." One of the firms involved in the suit, Outten & Golden, has brought similar suits against Facebook in the past. In September 2018, Outten & Golden, the Communications Workers of America and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Facebook and 10 other employers for unlawfully discriminating against potential job seekers. In December 2017, an investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times found dozens of major employers ran recruitment ads that targeted only certain age groups. From November 2016 to September 2018, Facebook faced several discrimination lawsuits as well as charges from civil rights and labor groups, workers and individuals. Facebook's ad systems allegedly excluded certain people from seeing housing, employment and credit ads based on age, gender or race. Facebook paid nearly $5 million to settle several suits in March, including the one brought by Outten & Golden. Facebook also announced a separate advertising portal for housing, employment and credit ads that will offer significantly fewer targeting options. [GN] FARFETCH LTD: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Farfetch Limited (FTCH) Class Period: 9/21/2018 - 8/8/2019 or purchase of securities issued either in or after the September 2018 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 18, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ftch/ Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI) Class Period: 6/6/2019 - 8/28/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 18, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-olli/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] FARMERS GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Petition in Geter Case ------------------------------------------------------------- FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, FIRE UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, GERALD HOOKS JR., LESLY K. NOLEN, AND JOSEPH C. BLANKS, P.C. filed on Nov. 5, 2019, a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition with the Supreme Court of Texas in the lawsuit captioned FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, FIRE UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, GERALD HOOKS JR., LESLY K. NOLEN, AND JOSEPH C. BLANKS, P.C., Petitioners v. SANDRA GETER, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondent, Case No. 19-0996.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Mr. Joseph C. Blanks, Esq. Ms. Katherine D. Mackillop, Esq. Mr. Lawrence L. Germer, Esq. Mr. Layne E. Kruse, Esq. Mr. Carlos R. Rainer Jr., Esq. The Respondent is represented by: Mr. Glen W. Morgan, Esq. Mr. Larry De-Wayne Layfield, Esq. FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS: Faces Landucci Suit Over Illegal Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Landucci, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS, LLC and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07573 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2019), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code, the Business & Professions Code, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Defendants implemented its policy and practice of charging employees, who did not enroll in direct deposit an $8.00 fee each time they cashed a paycheck, which is prohibited by the California Labor Code, the Plaintiff contends. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants charged her an $8.00 fee to cash her paychecks. The Plaintiff also alleges that she has also been sexually harassed, discriminated against because of her sex, and retaliated against for reporting that unlawful activity. In retaliation for her reports of misconduct, the Defendants reduced the Plaintiff's work hours, preventing her from making the same amount of money as her male co-workers by not providing her with as much overtime and double time as her male counterparts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks damages to compensate her for lost wages and benefits, together with interest at the legal rate, and emotional distress damages resulting from the Defendants' unlawful actions. Teresa Landucci has worked for Freeman, formerly known as Champion Expositions Services, for 13 years. Freeman is an American marketing company that specializes in face-to-face marketing events, such as expositions, conventions, exhibits, and corporate events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Hoyer, Esq. Ryan L. Hicks, Esq. HOYER & HICKS 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 766-3539 Fax: (415) 276-1738 Email: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com rhicks@hoyerlaw.com GATES CORP: Court Denies Collective Class Notice in Lundine Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eric Melgren of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Collective Class Notice in the case captioned PEGGY LUNDINE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GATES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-1235-EFM, (D. Kan.). Plaintiff Peggy Lundine commenced the collective class action lawsuit under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of all similarly-situated non-exempt manufacturing employees working at some of Defendant Gates Corporation's facilities. Lundine identifies three issues with the proposed class notice and asks the District Court to resolve them in her favor. First, Lundine argues that the notice should more clearly communicate that class members may not be required to pay Gates's attorneys' fees, even though they may be required to pay other legal expenses related to the case. Second, Lundine argues that the notice should not state that class members will be required to travel to Kansas. Third, Lundine argues that the notice should not list Gates's counsel's contact information. On review, Judge Melgren concludes that Lundine's three arguments concerning the class notice are without merit. First, the notice sufficiently informs putative class members that they may be required to pay court costs and other expenses if the claims end up being without merit, the Court holds. The notice is unlikely to deter putative class members from joining in this action by leading them to mistakenly believe that they will have to pay Gates's attorney's fees in addition to other court costs. Second, the Court concludes that the notice sufficiently informs putative class members that they may be required to travel to Kansas without deterring them from joining the action. The notice does not state that all class members must travel to Kansas. It merely states that the putative class member may have to travel to Kansas. Finally, the Court concludes that the notice should include Gates's counsel's information. The proposed notice in Exhibit B lists Gates's counsel after the plaintiff's counsel in a less prominent and unambiguous manner. Putative class members are unlikely to be confused about which counsel would represent them. Accordingly. Plaintiff Peggy Lundine's Motion for Approval of Collective Class Notice is DENIED, the Court rules. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4g94kn9 from Leagle.com Peggy Lynn Lundine, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, John Stronghoner, Jim Aikens, Jeanne L. Carson, Andrew DeSpain, Shawn W. Tubbs, Hannah Arnold, Elizabeth Lydy, Mary Von Kannon-Marchand, Anthony Rogers, Ethan Hammock, Tyler Chamberlain, Jeremey Chamblee, Courtney Belue, Zachary Tehee, Ellis Wooten, Harlon D. Farr, Jr., Christopher Thorton, Leslie Thomason & Martha J. Michael, Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan J. Donelon , Donelon, PC & Daniel W. Craig , Donelon, PC, 4600 Madison, Suite 810, Kansas City, MO 64112 Gates Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Eby - christopher.eby@akerman.com-Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher S. Shank – chris@shankmoore.com -Shank & Moore, LLC, Colin L. Barnacle - colin.barnacle@akerman.com - Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice & David Lee Heinemann – davidh@shankmoore.com - Shank & Moore, LLC. GC SERVICES: Illegally Calls Elhendi's Phone, TCPA Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Mohamed Elhendi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:19-cv-02246 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2019), arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to the TCPA, the Plaintiff contends. He adds that he orally revoked any and all consent to be contacted using an automated telephone dialing system, to the extent any ever existed. Mohamed Elhendi is a natural person residing in Orange County, California. GC Services Limited Partnership is a debt collection company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Ct. Establishes Case Mgmt. Common Benefit Protocol ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division issued an Order establishing Protocol for Common Benefit Work and Expenses in the case captioned RICHARD FRANCIS, WESLEY WON, DENNIS SPEERLY, JOSEPH SIERCIO, MICHAEL PLAFKER, HOWARD YOUNG, and DARRIN DEGRAND, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant. KEITH SHELTON, KAREN SHELTON, DANIEL DRAIN, WAVERS SMITH, RICHARD FREEMAN, SAMUEL FORD, KEITH FENSKE, COLTON KELLY, and CHRISOPHER GILES, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant. LOUIS RAY, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant. DENNIS DUFFY, RICHARD SULLIVAN, DANIEL BAPTIST, DENNIS SPEERLY, MICHAEL PLAFKER, JOHN IASIELLO, and BENJI TOMPKINS, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, INC., Defendant. MARISELLA GUTIERREZ, JIMMY HARMAN, MARK KIDD, and JAMES NORVELL, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 19-11044, 19-11802, 19-11808, 19-11875, 19-12371 (E.D. Mich.). The Court entered an order appointing the plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and the plaintiffs' Steering Committee. Among the duties imposed in that order on Lead Counsel was the obligation to enforce guidelines approved by the Court as to the keeping of time records and expenses. In this Order, the Court establishes specific guidelines and rules for work done and expenses incurred for the common benefit of all plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. Adoption of Case Management Protocols for Common Benefit Work. The Court hereby adopts the following guidelines for the management of case staffing, timekeeping, cost reimbursement, and related common benefit issues. Compensable Common Benefit Work Common Benefit Work includes all work done and expenses incurred that inure to the common benefit of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. Examples of compensable and noncompensable work include, inter alia: 1. Consolidated Pleadings and Briefs: (a) factual and legal research and preparation of consolidated class action complaints and related briefing (b) responding to inquiries from class members; (c) communications with clients in response to Lead Counsel's requests regarding proposed class representatives; (d) comments and suggestions regarding the consolidated class action complaints; and (e) class-related issues and briefing related thereto are compensable. 2. Depositions: Although it is impracticable to impose inflexible rules to cover every conceivable situation, Lead Counsel shall exercise discretion, judgment, and prudence to designate only the number of attorneys to participate in any given deposition that is commensurate with the nature of that deposition so as to avoid over-staffing. Thus, for example, the deposition of a causation expert proffered by the defendant would typically justify the assignment of more attorneys than would the defense of the deposition of one of the plaintiffs' fact witnesses. Time and expenses for Participating Counsel not designated as one of the authorized questioners or otherwise authorized to attend the deposition by Lead Counsel may not be considered Common Benefit Work but, rather, work on behalf of such counsel's individual clients. Unnecessary attendance by counsel may not be compensated in any fee application to the Court. Common Benefit Timekeeping Protocols All time must be accurately and contemporaneously maintained. Participating Counsel must keep contemporaneous billing records of the time spent in connection with Common Benefit Work on these consolidated cases, indicating with specificity the hours (in tenth-of-an-hour increments) and billing rate, along with a description of the particular activity (conducted deposition of John Doe). Each time entry must be categorized using one of the categories in Exhibit A. In general, when possible, a more specific category should be used in place of a more general category. Under no circumstances should a submitting firm make up new categories for use in its submission. Block billing is not permitted. Counsel should direct to Lead Counsel any additional questions about particular timekeeping categories. Under no circumstances should a submitting firm make up new categories for use in its submission. Hourly Rates Counsel may use their customary billing rates in monthly time reports. However, use of those rates does not guarantee payment. The Court will exercise its discretion to determine reasonable and appropriate rates as the circumstances may warrant. Common Benefit Expenses Protocol Shared Costs Shared Costs are costs that will be paid out of the Litigation Fund administered by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel. Each Plaintiffs' Steering Committee member shall contribute to the Fund at times and in amounts sufficient to cover plaintiffs' expenses for the administration of these consolidated cases. The timing and amount of each assessment will be determined by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, and each assessment will be paid within 30 days as instructed by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel. Failure to pay assessments will be grounds for removal from the appointments made in previous Court Orders or other common benefit assignments. Shared Costs are costs incurred for the common benefit of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases as a whole. No client-related costs, except certain costs relating to future cases selected as bellwether cases that will be for the common benefit (e.g., related to liability and causation), shall be considered Shared Costs, unless exceptional circumstances exist and are approved by order of this Court. All Shared Costs must be approved by Lead Counsel before payment. Lead Counsel must prepare and be responsible for distributing reimbursement procedures and the forms associated therewith. Requests for payments from the Fund for Common Benefit expenses must include sufficient information to permit Lead Counsel and a certified public accountant (CPA) to account properly for costs and to provide adequate detail to the Court if necessary. Held Costs Held Costs are those costs and expenses that will be carried by each attorney in these consolidated cases and reimbursed as and when Lead Counsel determines to do so. Held Costs are those that do not fall into the above Shared Costs categories but are incurred for the common benefit of all plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. No client-specific costs can be considered Held Costs, other than certain Common Benefit costs relating to class representatives and future bellwether cases at the discretion of Lead Counsel and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. Held Costs shall be recorded in accordance with the guidelines set forth herein and on the form provided as Addendum B hereto. Held Costs shall be subject to the following limitations: Travel Limitations Only reasonable expenses will be reimbursed. Except in unusual circumstances approved by Lead Counsel, all travel reimbursements are subject to the following limitations: Airfare: For routine domestic flights, ordinarily only the price of a refundable, changeable and convenient coach fare seat or its equivalent will be reimbursed. For international travel or transcontinental flights with a total duration exceeding four hours, business class, or if business class is not available, first class, may be reimbursed at Lead Counsel's discretion. Private or charter travel will not be reimbursed except in unusual circumstances, as approved by Lead Counsel. Hotel: Hotel room charges for the average available room rate of a reasonable business hotel may be reimbursed. Meals: Meal expenses must be reasonable. Large meal expenses may be reviewed by Lead Counsel and disallowed. Non-Travel Limitations Long Distance, Conference Call, and Cellular Telephone Charges: Common Benefit long distance, conference call, and cellular telephone charges are to be reported at actual cost.• Shipping, Overnight, Courier, and Delivery Charges: All claimed Common Benefit shipping, overnight, courier, or delivery expenses must be documented with bills showing the sender, origin of the package, recipient, and destination of the package. Such charges are to be reported at actual cost. Postage Charges: Common Benefit postage charges are to be reported at actual cost. Telefax Charges: Common Benefit fax charges shall not exceed $0.25 per page. Supplemental submissions of common benefit time will be permitted only for good cause shown and with the approval of Lead Counsel. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2axss3u from Leagle.com. Richard Francis, Wesley Won, Dennis Speerly, Joseph Sierchio, Michael Plafker, Howard Young & Darrin Degrand, Plaintiffs, represented by Beth M. Rivers , Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers, 117 West 4th Street, Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48067, Douglas James McNamara - dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Theodore J. Leopold - tleopold@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC & Michael L. Pitt , Pitt, McGehee, 117 West 4th Street, Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48067. General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Grant A. Newman - newman@bsplaw.com - Bush Seyferth PLLC, Jared Alexander Levine - JaLevine@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP, -jmurphy@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP, Kathleen T. Sooy - ksooy@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP & Stephanie A. Douglas , Bush Seyferth PLLC, 100 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 400, Troy, MI 48084. GENESIS TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bussey Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL D. BUSSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENESIS TECHNICAL STAFFING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00782 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Bussey was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid employee. Genesis Technical Staffing, Inc. is a staffing company providing workers to a variety of energy related industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjoseph@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard 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 GNC HOLDINGS: Camacho Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards ------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Camacho, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-06507 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille so they 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 alleges. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's 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 owns, operates and/or controls GNC retail stores across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn Solotoff, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 280-3008 Fax: (212) 656-1845 Email: ds@lawsolo.net - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Ongoing in 2010 Employees Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that arbitration is proceeding in a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that the company (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as to the plaintiffs’ disparate impact and treatment claims. On September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review of the district court's class certification decision and subsequently denied defendants' petition for rehearing. On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief. On April 12, 2019, Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion to compel arbitration as to certain class members who are parties to agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co. in which they agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes, and plaintiffs filed a motion challenging the enforceability of arbitration agreements executed after the filing of the class action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss litigation related to the sale of U.S. Treasury securities is still pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede competition in the bidding process. The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit over Aluminum Trades ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), J. Aron & Company and Metro continues to defend a class action suits related to the storage of aluminum and aluminum trading. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), J. Aron & Company and Metro, a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class and individual actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. In December 2016, the district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss as to all remaining claims. Certain plaintiffs subsequently appealed in December 2016. On August 27, 2019, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissals and remanded the case to district court for further proceedings. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GROUPON INC: 7th Circuit Remands Instagram User's Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Gary M. Pappas and Raina T. Shipman, writing for The National Law Review reports that the Seventh Circuit remanded an Instagram user's appeal after the court found that Groupon's notice of removal did not allege the citizenship of any diverse member of the putative class. The decision highlights the importance of actually alleging the minimal diversity requirement for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiff, Christine Dancel, obtained permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to appeal the lower court's denial of class certification in her claim alleging that Groupon violated the Illinois publicity statute by using her Instagram photos for advertisement purposes without her permission. While the sole issue before the Seventh Circuit was the denial of class certification, the proceedings below drew the court's attention to "a critical hole" in the notice of removal: it did not allege the citizenship of a single diverse member of the putative class. "[E]ven on interlocutory review," the court said, it must "be assured that the district court has jurisdiction" before deciding the merits of an appeal. CAFA permits removal of a proposed class action to federal court as long as there is minimal diversity; meaning just one member of the plaintiff class needs to be a citizen of a state different from any one defendant. In its notice of removal, Groupon – a citizen of Delaware and Illinois – only stated that the class "undoubtedly would include at least some undetermined number of non-Illinois and non-Delaware citizens as class plaintiffs." Initially, Dancel did not challenge minimal diversity in her motion for remand at the trial court level but "changed her tune" in her reply in support of remand. Although Groupon insisted that it could easily cure the deficiency, the district court denied the motion to remand and did not address minimal diversity or direct Groupon to cure its allegations. The Seventh Circuit found that Groupon's allegation of "negative citizenship" failed to satisfy the minimal diversity requirement. Groupon countered that Dancel had waived her opportunity to contest the issue. However, the Seventh Circuit held that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and only an unchallenged factual determination that supports jurisdiction is subject to waiver. The court found that Groupon's allegations in the notice of removal did not have any necessary factual content. Groupon's omission did not mean that the case had to be immediately remanded to state court as the Seventh Circuit held that "[a]s long as the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is either apparent from the record or cured through amendment of the notice of removal, we can proceed to the class-certification issue." Thus, the court directed the district court to permit discovery to "whatever extent the court deems necessary for Groupon to allege that at least one member of the putative class" was a non-Illinois or non-Delaware resident at the time of the case's removal. The Seventh Circuit retained its jurisdiction over the appeal pending resolution of the issue. Dancel v. Groupon, Inc., No. 19-1831 (7th Cir. Oct. 9, 2019). [GN] HUGHES GROUP: Meyers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Meyers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUGHES GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00806-KGB (E.D. Ark., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff was misclassified by the Defendant as exempt under the FLSA, and was not paid an hourly rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for every hour worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a custodian from September 2016 until July 2019. The Defendant secures government contracts to provide facility maintenance for government buildings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com IROBOT CORP: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- 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 iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ: IRBT) between November 21, 2016 and October 22, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for iRobot investors under the federal securities laws. To join the iRobot class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1703.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) iRobot's explosive growth was not based on increased demand, expanding margins, and product innovations, as it claimed, but rather based on channel stuffing; (2) the Company attempted to conceal its actions by acquiring its distributors in Europe and Asia; (3) these acquisitions were designed to clean up the company's global inventory and mask falling demand; and (4) as a result, iRobot'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 23, 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-1703.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. 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 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] J.G. WENTWORTH: Avery et al. Allege Illegal Kickback Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- KEITH and KECIA AVERY; RUSSELL and MADELINE BROWNFIELD, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J.G. WENTWORTH HOME LENDING, LLC, successor to WESTSTAR MORTGAGE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03303-DLB (D.M.D., Nov. 15, 2019) alleges violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are borrowers who currently have or had a residential mortgage loan originated and brokered by Defendant WestStar Mortgage, Inc., predecessor to J.G. Wentworth Home Lending, LLC, which was or is secured by the Plaintiffs' residential real property. The Plaintiffs are victims of an illegal kickback scheme ("All Star Scheme") under which WestStar's loan officers, agents, or other employees received and accepted illegal kickbacks from All Star Title, Inc. ("All Star"), a Maryland-based title and settlement services company, in exchange for the assignment and referral of residential mortgage loans, refinances and reverse mortgages to All Star for title and settlement services. WestStar and All Star laundered the kickbacks through third party marketing companies to conceal the illegal kickbacks and the All Star Scheme. West Star and All Star defrauded borrowers into paying for the illegal kickbacks by charging borrowers an amount that was not associated with any legitimate title or settlement service ("Kickback Overcharge") and imposed for the sole purpose of funding the illegal kickbacks. West Star and All Star fraudulently misrepresented these charges on borrowers' Good Faith Estimates, HUD-1 Statements and other loan documents as associated with legitimate title and settlement services thereby defrauding borrowers into bearing the cost of the illegal enterprise. Weststar Mortgage, Inc. (WestStar) provides banking services. The Company specializes in residential mortgage banking services, retail lending, and conventional loans. WestStar serves clients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. Megan A. Benevento, Esq. JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com vnannis@jgllaw.com mbenevento@jgllaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. SMITH GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 821-0070 Facsimile: (410) 821-0071 E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com JMC HOLDINGS: Court OKs $44.75K FLSA Suit Settlement Deal --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion granting Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Settlement as to All Plaintiffs in the case captioned JESY CRUZ; LUIS RODRIGUEZ; AND MERCEDES TRINIDAD: on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JMC HOLDINGS, LTD. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA; JOHN CILMI; and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Civil No. 16-9321 (KSH) (CLW) (D.N.J.). Plaintiffs Jesy Cruz, Luis Rodriguez and Mercedes Trinidad filed this collective action against defendants JMC Holdings d/b/a Domino's Pizza and John Cilmi on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). Plaintiffs conclude that, because JMC allegedly paid them less than the statutory minimum wage when making deliveries and did not adequately reimburse them for their actual expenses, their actual compensation, free and clear, was less than minimum wage. They further contend that JMC's failure to properly reimburse them for their expenses resulted in them being paid overtime at a rate that was less than one-and-one-half the appropriate rates of pay. The Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, JMC will pay a Maximum Settlement Amount of $44,750.00. Named plaintiffs' counsel requests $19,271.83 of the Maximum Settlement Amount as attorneys' fees and costs, and named plaintiffs seek $3,000.00 each as a service award for their prosecution of this action. The remaining $16,478.17 will be distributed to all plaintiffs proportionally by dividing each plaintiff's "number of hours worked by total number of hours worked by all" plaintiffs during the time period covered by the collective action. Settlement Under the FLSA In approving an FLSA settlement agreement in the Third Circuit, a district court must find that the compromise reached is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions. A proposed settlement resolves a bona fide dispute' when it reflects a reasonable compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages, that are actually in dispute,' rather than `a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching. A proposed settlement is fair and reasonable when it (i) is fair and reasonable to the employee and (ii) does not otherwise frustrate the implementation of the FLSA. Fairness of the Settlement There is a Bona Fide Dispute A bona fide dispute exists when parties genuinely disagree about the merits of an FLSA claim when there is factual rather than legal doubt about whether the plaintiff would succeed at trial. Plaintiffs maintain (i) that JMC was not entitled to take advantage of a tip credit because it failed to provide them with the legally mandated disclosures that are a perquisite to taking such a credit and (ii) that they did not receive a free and clear minimum wage or overtime pay at one-and-a-half times the required rate of pay because they were not being fully reimbursed for their expenses. By contrast, JMC contends that it owes plaintiffs nothing because it (a) properly informed all employees about the tip credit and (b) adequately reimbursed employees for their expenses, satisfying the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the law. In light of the parties' diametrically opposed factual positions, the Court finds that a bona fide dispute exists. The Settlement is Fair and Reasonable District courts in the Third Circuit examine the factors set forth in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975) to determine whether an FLSA settlement is fair and reasonable. Those factors are as follows: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement . (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed (4) the risks of establishing liability (5) the risks of establishing damages (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation An examination of the Girsh factors establishes that the proposed settlement here is fair and reasonable. The first factor captures the probable costs, in both time and money, of continued litigation. The parties still dispute a number of complex issues consisting of whether JMC informed its employees about the tip credit, whether it sufficiently reimbursed its employees for their expenses, and whether it properly paid its employees minimum wage and overtime. Demonstrating the complexity of the issues at stake is plaintiffs' steadfast position that JMC violated the FLSA despite its voluntary production of approximately 1,400 pages of documents, which it claims prove that plaintiffs' claims are baseless. Given the complexity of those issues, named plaintiffs estimate that if this litigation were to proceed to a final judgment that there is a likelihood that any recovery for Plaintiffs would not occur for several years. Accordingly, the first Girsh factor counsels in favor of approval because the settlement agreement obviates the expenses and complicated process that would result from prolonged litigation, which could reduce any recovery for plaintiffs. The second Girsh factor is the reaction of the class to the settlement. Named plaintiffs communicated with plaintiffs throughout the litigation to keep them apprised of developments and none of the other plaintiffs have objected to the proposed settlement. Thus the second factor also supports approval. The third factor requires the Court to consider the stage of proceedings and the amount of discovery completed. Under this factor, a court must determine whether counsel had an adequate appreciation of the merits of the case before negotiating. While no depositions have been taken, JMC voluntarily produced a voluminous amount of documents regarding its employment policies, mileage reports for plaintiffs, and records that it alleges show it paid plaintiffs time-and-a-half for their overtime work and a full minimum wage for inside work. Critically, named plaintiffs' counsel gained an adequate appreciation of the merits of the case before negotiating the settlement with JMC by engaging in a full-day mediation session with a JAMS mediator experienced in wage-and-hour class action matters. The Court therefore finds that the third factor militates in favor of approval of the settlement. The fourth and fifth Girsh factors survey the potential risks and rewards of proceeding to litigation in order to weigh the likelihood of success against the benefits of an immediate settlement. Named plaintiffs recognize the obstacles they will face to prevail at trial. They estimate that plaintiffs' collective claims could total $36,000, but concede, after analyzing JMC's document production and mediation at JAMS, that JMC has potentially strong defenses. The difficulties that Plaintiffs recognize cause the likelihood of success at trial to pale in comparison with the benefit of immediate settlement. Accordingly, because the court must, to a certain extent, give credence to the estimation of the probability of success proffered by class counsel, who are experienced with the underlying case, and the possible defenses which may be raised to their cause of action, the fourth and fifth factors support the settlement. As for the sixth factor, there will always be a `risk' or possibility of decertification, and consequently the court can always claim this factor weighs in favor of settlement. The Court therefore finds that the sixth Girsh factor favors approval of the parties' settlement. The seventh Girsh factor is most relevant when the defendant's professed inability to pay is used to justify the amount of the settlement. The parties have not offered evidence regarding JMC's ability to withstand a greater judgment. As such, the Court finds that the seventh factor is neutral. For the eighth and ninth Girsh factors, a court asks whether the settlement represents a good value for a weak case or a poor value for a strong case. After deducting attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards from the $44,750.00 Maximum Settlement Amount, $16,478.17 remains to be distributed to plaintiffs proportionally by dividing each plaintiff's "number of hours worked by total number of hours worked by all plaintiffs during the time period covered by the collective action. This total represents 45% of the $36,000.00 that named plaintiffs estimate plaintiffs' collective claims to be worth if they were to fully succeed on the merits. But named plaintiffs recognize that JMC possesses potentially strong defenses and that they might not succeed at trial, or that if they proceeded to trial, any recovery would be significantly eclipsed by the costs of the litigation. The settlement amount is therefore reasonable to resolve plaintiffs' claims. To be sure, there is always a chance for greater recovery at trial, but here, the benefits of the present settlement outweigh the risks of continued litigation. Accordingly, the eighth and ninth Girsh factors favor approval of the settlement. In short, an analysis of the Girsh factors supports approval of the settlement, and thus the Court finds that it is fair and reasonable. The Settlement Does Not Frustrate the Purposes of FLSA JMC argues that it informed plaintiffs about the tip credit and sufficiently reimbursed them for their expenses so as to satisfy minimum wage and overtime laws. In pursuing the class's claims, which JMC disputes, named plaintiffs maintain that they have analyzed extensive payroll, mileage reimbursement data as well as policy and other documents produced by JMC. After analyzing and evaluating their claims against JMC and engaging in mediation, named plaintiffs concede that, if this action is not settled now, they might not recover any of their claimed damages or might obtain a more favorable recovery than originally sought, but there is a likelihood that any recovery would not occur for several years. In light of the complex issues raised by plaintiffs' claims and the anticipated time-consuming litigation, the Court finds that a settlement will resolve a bona fide dispute without undermining the purposes of the FLSA. Thus the Court finds that, as a whole, the proposed settlement does not frustrate the purposes of the FLSA. Thus, Named plaintiffs' consent motion to approve settlement is granted, rules the Court. The $19,271.83 for attorneys' fees and costs represents approximately 43% of the total $44,750.00 Maximum Settlement Amount and thus lies within the range of reasonable allocations with respect to awards granted in similar cases. The Court also notes that a larger percentage is appropriate here given the smaller size of the settlement fund. And each plaintiff expressly agreed to the formula in the retainer agreement pursuant to which counsel calculated the $19,271.83 sum. The Court, therefore, finds that the $19,271.83 sought as attorneys' fees and costs is not excessive and therefore approves the request. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyhmbzlb from Leagle.com. JESY CRUZ, LUIS RODRIGUEZ, MERCEDES TRINIDAD, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Alex Alba, Christian Castillo, Edward Puello, Sashari Rivas, Keyera Payne, Joan Valdez, Shohidul Islam, Shahjoly Abul, Elias Roman, Stacy Brown, Andreina Vargas, Minhaj Chowdhury, Rysell Ruan, Charlie Pena Bautista, Rodrigo Jimenez Carrillo, Mohammad Chowdhury, Masum Ahmed, Abdulhye Iqbal, Xiomara Salazar, Maria Ruan, Jerome Anderson, Kalai Alias, Maria Cochachi & Maayni Cheikh, Plaintiffs, represented by DAVID STEIN , SAMUEL & STEIN, 38 West 32nd Street Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001. JOE RIZZA: Abad Sues over Biometric Data Collections ---------------------------------------------------- CHRISSANA ABAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOE RIZZA IMPORTS, INC. dba JOE RIZZA ACURA; JOE RIZZA FORD OF ORLAND PARK, INC.; and JOE RIZZA ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, and KEY CONTROL HOLDING, INC. dba KEYRAK, INC., Respondent in Discovery, Case No. 2019CH13106 (Il Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 12, 2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Prior to taking the Plaintiff's biometric, the Defendants did not inform the Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected, stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of biometrics. Joe Rizza Imports, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company offers new and used passenger cars, utility vehicles, and trucks, as well as provides parts and accessories, repairs and maintenance, finance, and insurance services. JOE Rizza Imports serves customers in the State of Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mara Baltabols, Esq. David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com JOINT UNDERWRITING: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in Ronda RICO Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico issued an opinion and order granting Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned NOEMI TORRES RONDA and ANGELO RIVERA LAMBOY, Plaintiffs, v. JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION; CARIBBEAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY; CHARTIS INSURANCE COMPANY OF PUERTO RICO; COOPERATIVA DE SEGUROS MULTIPLES DE PUERTO RICO; INTEGRAND ASSURANCE COMPANY; MAPFRE-PRAICO; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; OPTIMA INSURANCE COMPANY; REAL LEGACY ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE OF PUERTO RICO, INC.; SEGUROS TRIPLE-S PROPIEDAD INC.; UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; RAMON L. CRUZ COLON, in his official capacity as Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; RUBEN A. HERNANDEZ GREGORAT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Public Works; and JESUS F. MENDEZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Defendants, Civil No. 11-1826CCC (D.P.R.). Plaintiffs allege that defendants took advantage of Law 253 of 1995, the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Act, which requires every motor vehicle owner to buy automobile insurance for a set premium of $99. Plaintiffs allege that JUA and defendant insurance companies are required by law to refund to purchasers a portion of the premium intended for acquisition and administrative costs that were never expended. Rather than issuing such a refund, plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to retain the full premium. The class is composed of all motor vehicle owners in Puerto Rico who purchased compulsory automobile liability insurance from 1998 until the adjudication of this action. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court look to the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and any affidavits in making the determination. A dispute is genuine if the evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in favor of the non-moving party. A fact is material if it has potential to determine the outcome of the litigation. Once a properly supported motion has been presented, where a nonmovant bears the burden of proof on an issue, the nonmovant must point to competent evidence and specific facts to defeat summary judgment. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act A civil RICO suit must allege violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), which states that it shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. Only a person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962 has standing to bring a private civil RICO action. The definition of racketeering activity is found at 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(1), and at least two related acts included in such definition are required to establish a pattern. Included under the definition of racketeering activity is any act which is indictable under 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 (mail fraud). There are two elements to mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud or to perform specified fraudulent acts) and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme or specified fraudulent acts. Puerto Rico Compulsory Insurance Law No. 253 of 1995 established a new compulsory automobile insurance system, created JUA, and required all private insurance companies underwriting automobile insurance to become members of JUA. Law No. 253 set the price of compulsory auto insurance at $99, 27 L.P.R.A. Section 8056, and provides that the insurance premium is not refundable. Count One Count One alleges that defendants violated RICO because they knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully, aided and abetted, and conspired with each other, to devise, or intend to devise the Scheme to Defraud, by which they were to illegally obtain, acquire and maintain control of the refundable payments paid by the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members, to later illegally keep those assets for their own pecuniary benefit and interest. Plaintiffs allege that they were economically injured by defendants' actions because they are entitled to a refund of a portion of the premiums paid for compulsory liability insurance specifically, 8% of the premium intended to be used to for acquisition expenses, such as commissions paid to insurance brokers, and 4% of the premium intended to be used for administrative expenses, such as providing paper copies of insurance policies. Plaintiffs argue three theories of mail fraud: (1) the defendants caused DTPW to mail billing statements for compulsory insurance that failed to inform consumers that parts of the insurance premium were refundable (2) the defendants caused DTPW to mail billing statements for compulsory insurance that charged acquisition and administrative costs that would not be incurred (3) JUA failed to place excess premium funds in the Special Reserve created by Rule LXX. Plaintiffs' first claim, that defendants committed mail fraud by causing DPTW to omit on billing documents that a portion of the premium is refundable, must fail because the conduct that plaintiff identifies as fraudulent is required by law. The DPTW must bill for compulsory insurance premiums at a cost of $99. Nothing in the compulsory insurance statute requires the DTPW to state that any portion of the premium is refundable. Whether or not defendants influenced the drafting of the statute or accompanying regulations in a way that benefitted them, as plaintiffs allege, Law 253 is the law of Puerto Rico, and compliance with its terms cannot constitute mail fraud. The second claim alleges that defendants committed mail fraud by causing DTPW to mail billing documents charging the full $99 compulsory insurance premium and then failing to refund the portion of the premium not actually spent on acquisition or administrative costs. As to the remaining private insurance companies, assuming, arguendo, that they are legally required to refund excess premium payments, there is no racketeering activity as required to support a RICO claim. As previously stated, DTPW is required by law to charge a $99 premium, 26 L.P.R.A. Section 8056, and compliance with the law cannot constitute mail fraud. There are no facts in dispute which, when viewed in the light most favorably to the plaintiffs, would permit a finding of mail fraud by JUA or the private insurance companies. The third claim pertains solely to JUA. Plaintiff alleges that JUA has failed to place excess funds in the Special Reserve, as required by Rule LXX (d.e. 46-1). Plaintiff's Complaint does not include this theory; it was raised by plaintiffs for the first time in their Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. This claim is not obviously related to the mailings by DPTW, which the Court have already found cannot constitute mail fraud. In addition, plaintiffs have not alleged that they have been injured in their business or property by JUA's alleged failure to place funds in the Special Reserve. This claim must fail under RICO because, assuming, arguendo, that JUA has failed to place funds in the Special Reserve, there are no facts in dispute that, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, would allow a factfinder to find mail fraud or an injury that would confer plaintiffs standing. Even accepting plaintiffs' factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, a reasonable trier of fact could not find that mail fraud constituting racketeering activity occurred. Accordingly, plaintiffs' RICO claim fails as a matter of law and summary judgment must be granted in favor of defendants as to Count One. Count Two Count Two alleges that defendant JUA violated 18 U.S.C. Section1962(a) by transmitting racketeering proceeds to a bank outside of Puerto Rico. As plaintiffs' racketeering claim at Count One has failed, no racketeering proceeds can be established. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted in favor of defendants as to Count Two. Count Three Count Three alleges that all defendants violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1562(d) by conspiring to transfer racketeering proceeds as alleged in Count Two. As plaintiffs' racketeering claim has failed, no racketeering proceeds can be established. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted in favor of defendants as to Count Three. Count Four The Court's jurisdiction in this matter rest upon federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Having granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all federal causes of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining claims under Commonwealth law. Against this backdrop, the Court GRANTS appearing defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment and all defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5xqevur from Leagle.com. Noemi Torres-Ronda & Angelo Rivera-Lamboy, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan -quetglaslaw@gmail.com - Quetglas Law Office PSC, Pedro R. Vazquez, III , Pedro R. Vazquez Law Office 405 Esmeralda Ave Pmb 153, Guaynabo, PR, 00969-4457 & Jose F. Quetglas , Quetglas Law Office, 1021 Ave. Ashford CondadoSanturce, PR 00907 Joint Underwriting Association, Defendant, represented by Mario A. Arroyo-Maymi , Mario Arroyo Law Offices P.S.C., PMB 379, 1353 Ave. Luis Vigoreaux, Guaynabo, P.R. 00966, Moraima S. Rios-Robles - mrios@arroyorioslaw.com - Arroyo & Rios Law Offices, P.S.C. & Yamilette Vega-Motta - yvega@arroyorioslaw.com - Arroyo & Rios Law Offices, P.S.C. Chartis Insurance Company of Puerto Rico & Allstate Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Carmen M. Alfonso-Rodriguez - car@mcvpr.com - McConnell Valdes, LLC, Eduardo A. Zayas-Marxuach - ezm@mcvpr.com - McConnell Valdes, LLC, Anders C. Wick , Dentons US LLP, 1221 Ave. of the Americas, New York, New York 10020, pro hac vice & Mark L. Hanover , Dentons US LLP, 1221 Ave. of the Americas, New York, New York 10020 Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples de Puerto Rico, Real Legacy Assurance Co., Inc. & Royal & Sun Alliance of Puerto Rico Inc., Defendants, represented by Pedro R. Cintron-Rivera , Pedro R. Cintron Rivera Law Office, PO Box 1094Fajardo, PR 00738- 1094. KROGER: Customer Files Class Action Over 2018 Shooting ------------------------------------------------------ Billy Kobin, writing for Louisville Courier Journal, reports that a customer who was inside the Jeffersontown Kroger in October 2018 when Gregory Bush allegedly shot and killed two shoppers has filed a class-action lawsuit against the suspect and supermarket. The lawsuit, filed October 23 in Jefferson Circuit Court on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the deadly attack, claims Denise Clark suffered "physical, mental and/or emotional injuries" as a result of witnessing and fleeing from the shooting. Bush is facing murder and hate crime charges in state and federal court in connection with the Oct. 24, 2018, shooting that took the lives 67-year-old Vickie Lee Jones and 69-year-old Maurice Stallard, both black shoppers. The families of Jones and Stallard have also filed lawsuits against Kroger and Bush, who is white and allegedly told one bystander that "whites don't shoot whites." Similar to the two suits from the Jones and Stallard families, the latest suit claims Kroger had no policy in place to prevent Bush from carrying and using a loaded firearm in its store. In September, Kroger asked its customers to stop openly carrying guns in its stores following a string of mass shootings around the country. As Clark stood at the customer service desk inside the Jeffersontown Kroger on the afternoon of the shooting, she heard a gunshot and asked a Kroger employee if it was gunfire, according to the lawsuit. The employee responded that it was not gunfire, the suit states. Clark then heard two more shots and saw three men running toward the front entrance with Stallard's 12-year-old grandson, who witnessed his grandfather's death. Clark then saw Bush and led a group of 15 to 20 people to the other side of the store, according to the suit. Clark and her fiance, who works in the fresh food department at the store, exited the store along with others through a back office door. But once outside in the parking lot, the group heard more gunshots and ran back into the office, according to the suit. The group then barricaded themselves in the office until first responders arrived and "prayed that the gunman would not find them," the suit claims. The class-action suit invites others, with certain exceptions, who suffered physical, mental or emotional issues as a result of the shooting to join it. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and compensation along with a jury trial. In a statement, a Kroger spokeswoman said while the Cincinnati-based company "cannot comment on pending litigation, we want to express our deepest sympathies to the families affected by this senseless violence." Attorney Will Nefzger, Esq., who is representing Clark, told The Courier Journal that Kroger only offered Clark a $10 gift card after the shooting. In addition, Nefzger said more than two dozen shootings have taken place at Kroger stores around the country since 1991, including a 2007 shooting at the same Jeffersontown Kroger. "(Kroger) knew about these shootings happening, and yet no safety measures were taken whatsoever to protect their customers," Nefzger said. "They banned guns at their corporate offices, presumably for the safety of their corporate employees, but we've found no evidence of that at stores." Bush's federal case is on hold as the state case moves forward. A Jefferson Circuit Court judge is expected to make a ruling on his competency to stand trial during an Oct. 31 hearing. [GN] LACI TRANS: Stingley et al. Seek Stage-One Conditional Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as RENEE STINGLEY, EARNEST SMITH, JELTHER SEPT, LAMAR TRUSSELL, RICKEY HAWKINS AND FLOYD BEATTY, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. LACI TRANSPORT INC. AND VLADETA MARKOVITC, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06221 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs filed a motion on Nov. 13, 2019, for stage-one conditional certification and notice to putative class members. The Plaintiffs allege violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Judge Sara L. Ellis presides over the case.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com LEGACY HEALTH: Denied Protective Order, Must Respond to Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JULIANNE HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LEGACY HEALTH, LEGACY EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, LEGACY EMANUEL HOSPITAL & HEALTH CENTER, LEGACY HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, RANDALL CHILREN'S HOSPITAL AT LEGACY EMANUEL, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-CV-002219-AC (D. Or.), the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division issued an Opinion and Order denying Legacy's Motion for a Protective Order, and granting in part, Hunter's Motion to Compel Defendants' Responses to Written Discovery. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Legacy Health, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, Legacy Health Partners, LLC, and Randall Children's Hospital at Legacy Emanuel (Legacy) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Oregon law, alleging Legacy failed to pay overtime compensation for automatic time deductions and off-the-clock work; failed to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and took unlawful deductions from employee wages. Before the court were the parties' competing discovery motions: Legacy's Motion for a Protective Order, and Hunter's Motion to Compel Defendants' Responses to Written Discovery. Both Motions seek to define the scope of precertification discovery in this case. Legal Standards Protective Order Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 26(c), a court is authorized, upon a showing of good cause, to issue an order protecting a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Such orders may include prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters. Legacy moves for a protective order, seeking relief from Hunter's Requests for Production 1-3, 6-18, 20-30, 32-35, 37, 38, 41-43, 56-58, 60, and 61; and Interrogatories 1-6, 8 and 9. Legacy requests this court to use its broad discretion to limit the scope of precertification discovery by using a phased approach. In apparent keeping with this approach, Legacy proposes limiting discovery at this phase of the litigation to (1) system-wide policies and practices; and (2) documents from a maximum of 75 custodians from Legacy's central offices and at Legacy Hospital & Health Center (e.g., Legacy Emanuel Medical Center and Randall Children's Hospital), the hospital at which Hunter and all of the opt-in plaintiffs worked. Legacy does clarify which 75 custodians would be responsive or how they would be chosen. Should the court deny its Motion and find Hunter's discovery requests reasonable, Legacy requests the court to condition broader discovery on Plaintiff's undertaking half of Legacy's discovery expenses. Hunter contends she is amenable to sampling as Legacy proposes, but indicates the parties have not met and conferred to negotiate a reasonable sampling procedure, an acceptable list of email search terms, which custodians will be chosen for production, and to otherwise come to an agreement regarding a range of broader discovery issues. Because there has been no conferral between the parties, Hunter asserts there is no basis for the court to make a broad ruling regarding general discovery. Hunter argues that she seeks only the identities and contact information of collective and class members at this time, that she is open to sampling as Legacy proposes so long as the parties properly confer to define its parameters, and that she will narrow her discovery requests based on her investigation of the class and collective allegations. Legacy cannot demonstrate good cause to justify the broad sweep of the protective order it requests here. The only information currently sought by Hunter is reasonably related to the issue of certification, and Legacy's request for a protective order, as well as its claims of good cause, take aim at Hunter's requests for more general discovery. Hunter has assured the court her general discovery requests will be tailored in the wake of precertification investigation, the thus Legacy cannot demonstrate any specific harm or prejudice that will result if this court declines to grant a protective order and allows the parties time to confer and negotiate more general discovery matters after such investigation takes place. Legacy's Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED. Motion to Compel Rule 37 provides that a party seeking discovery may move the court for an order "compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection" if a party fails to answer a properly submitted interrogatory or an order requiring a party to supplement an "evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." The party seeking to compel discovery is burdened with demonstrating the information he or she seeks is relevant, but "[t]he party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections." The court has broad discretion to determine the relevancy of the information sought, and the requested information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Hunter moves the court to compel Legacy's responses to her discovery requests, "namely to disclose the identities and contact information of potential class and collective members across all of Defendants' hospital and clinic locations." In response, Legacy explains it is willing to provide the names and contact information for a sample of 400 employees who worked at Emanuel during the relevant time period, provided Hunter uses the Belaire-West notice procedure to protect employee privacy. Legacy requests the court to limit the information it must provide to the employee name, last-known address, and last-known phone number to "reduce the burden on Legacy and protect the employees' privacy interests. The Court held that Legacy fails to explain how it will be burdened by producing the additional information requested, particularly if discovery is limited to 600 individuals working at Emanuel. Furthermore, Legacy neglects to acknowledge that the Belaire-West notice Hunter has agreed to provide to class members will include a way for them to opt-out if they are concerned about their privacy. Privacy concerns thus do not present good cause to limit the information to be produced. Accordingly, Legacy is to provide all information requested by Hunter, except for individuals' social security numbers, in complying with this court's order, rules the Court. Legacy must provide Hunter with the name, job title, unit, last-known phone number, last-known email address, and dates of employment for a random sample of 600 individuals who worked at Emanuel or Randall during the relevant time period and meet the definition of "nursing staff" by October 24, 2019, orders the Court. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2psn8uh from Leagle.com. Julianne Hunter, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn H. Cottrell - ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns, LLP, pro hac vice, David C. Leimbach - dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kontecky Wotkyns, LLP, pro hac vice, William M. Hogg - whogg@schneiderwallace.com - Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns, LLP, pro hac vice & Dana L. Sullivan - dana@baaslaw.com - BAAS Law. Legacy Health & Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, Defendants, represented by Courtney Peck – CPeck@perkinscoie.com - Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English - SEnglish @perkinscoie.com- Perkins Coie, LLP, William B. Stafford - BStafford @perkinscoie.com - Perkins Coie, LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah J. Crooks - SCrooks@perkinscoie.com - Perkins Coie, LLP. LOWE'S HOME: Blair et al. Seek Proper Separation Benefits --------------------------------------------------------- CODY BLAIR; and LISA BRANCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03209 (D. Colo., Nov. 12, 2019) is an action for damages resulting the Defendant's systematic breaches of its separation contracts. In early January 2019, the Defendant informed its Loss Prevention Managers of the "Organization Change" which means the elimination of thousands of employees who had served as managers in the Loss Prevention Department. Terminated employees were offered Release and Separation Agreements which expressly incorporated a specified sum of money that would be paid as severance. Despite the fact that employees accepted the Release and Separation Agreements by signing and returning the agreements and otherwise performing as required, the Defendant decided to breach the contract by refusing to pay the amounts specified in the signed contracts. Lowe's Home Centers Inc. retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances. The Company markets lumber, garden tools and supplies, home electrical devices, electrical components, ceilings, wall panels, hardwood flooring, fasteners, fireplaces, and humidifiers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven L. Woodrow Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com - and – Laura S. Tuel, Esq. THE ADVOCATE EDGE, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Ave, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 588-9827 E-mail: laura@theadvocateedge.com MASTERCORP INC: Underpays Housekeepers, Aguirre-Valdivia Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ANA AGUIRRE-VALDIVIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASTER CORP.; and DOES 1 through 110, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00060820-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Nov. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Aguirre-Valdivia was employed by the Defendants as housekeeper. MasterCorp, Inc. provides cleaning and maintenance services. The Company offers departure cleaning, laundry management, assessment, traffic area carpet cleaning, inventory control, and maintenance reporting services. MasterCorp operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. Jake W. Schulte, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org jschulte@nicholaslaw.org MATCH GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (WTRH) Class Period: 5/17/2018 - 8/8/2019 including shares acquired in connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/ Altria Group, Inc. (MO) Class Period: 12/20/2018 - 9/24/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mo/ Match Group, Inc. (MTCH) Class Period: 8/6/2019 - 9/25/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mtch/ SmileDirectClub, Inc. (SDC) Class Period: shares issued either in or after the September 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sdc/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] MDL 2918: Integrity v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Integrity Financial Services of Tampa Bay Inc. et al., the Plaintiffs, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-12258 (Filed July 31, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07046-MMC to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Integrity case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through creativity". Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are: Diana Gjonaj, Esq. WEITZ LUXENBERG, P.C. 719 Griswold, Suite 620 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 800-4167 E-mail: dgjonaj@weitzlux.com - and - Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. Paul F. Novak, Esq. Tiffany R. Ellis, Esq. WEITZ LUXENBERG, P.C. 719 Griswold, Suite 620 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 E-mail: gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com pnovak@weitzlux.com tellis@weitzlux.com - and - Jay L. Himes, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0834 E-mail: jhimes@labaton.com MDL 2918: Uglem v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as TIMOTHY A. ST. CYR and PAMELA UGLEM, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02477 (Filed July 31, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07050-MMC to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Uglem case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through creativity". Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are: Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. Nicholas S. Kuhlmann, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON 8050 West 78 th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 E-mail: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com nkuhlmann@hjlawfirm.com MDL 2918: Voyager v. Headway over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as VOYAGER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02357 (Filed Aug. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07051-MMC to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Voyager case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through creativity". Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are: Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq. MCSWEENEY LANGEVIN, LLC 2116 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 Telephone: (612) 746-4646 Facsimile: (612) 454-2678 E-mail: ram@westrikeback.com - and - Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. Kathryn R. Eisenstein, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com keisenstein@manteselaw.com MILL-TELL INC: Underpays Repair Technicians, Bell et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHEN BELL; and JESSE PIPPEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILL-TELL INC.; COXCOM, LLLC; and COX COMMUNICATIONS KANSAS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02967-cm-tjj (D. Kan., Nov. 12, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as repair technicians. Mill-Tell Inc. provides telecommunication installation and repair services within the State of Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. Tess Bradford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com tess@sanfordlawfirm.com MISSION CYCLESPORTS: Botello Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Leroy Botello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MISSION CYCLESPORTS, L.P., and FREDERICK WILLIAM BOSSHARDT, II, Case No. 5:19-cv-01348 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from their commonly applied policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week in at least one week in which they also earned commissions for the Defendants, according to the complaint. Because the Defendants did not include commission payments in the overtime wage calculations, the Plaintiff was not properly paid overtime wages for all overtime hours worked. The Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid Parts Associate from December 2016 to July 2019. The Defendants sell motorcycles, as well as motorcycle parts and accessories, and motorcycle-related merchandise and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Allison Koile, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com allison@sanfordlawfirm.com MOM365 INC: Cheng May Attend Hoover Settlement Hearing by Telephone ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned KELLY HOOVER, Plaintiff, v. MOM365, INC., a Missouri Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-01328-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Defendant's Request to Appear Telephonically. Attorney David L. Cheng is allowed to attend the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement telephonically. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/QjigfX from Leagle.com. Kelly Hoover, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda -- attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin Paul Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. MOM365, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Brauer Abidoye, Ford & Harrison LLP, Alexandria M. Witte -- awitte@fordharrison.com -- Ford Harrison LLP & David Cheng, Ford Harrison LLP. NORTH CAROLINA: Correction Officers Sue DPS, DAC Over Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, DiCello Levitt Gutzler, LLC, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, and Berger Montague PC announce that their clients have filed a class and collective action lawsuit in federal court against the North Carolina Department of Public Safety ("DPS") and Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice ("DAC"), to recover wages owed to North Carolina Correction Officers for mandatory, but uncompensated, pre-shift and post-shift duties. DPS and DAC policies and practices mandate that North Carolina Correction Officers perform a long list of required tasks necessary for safety and security, before they start to get paid for each shift, and after the end of each shift, but then cap the Correction Officers' pay. The Plaintiffs who have filed the lawsuit, including Matthew Hodge, David Holbrook, Philip Kay, Jacob Franckowiak, Brooks Dickerson, and Ralph Brown, are current and former Correction Officers, or Sergeants, who seek to represent all similarly-situated employees of DPS and DAC at any time over the past three years to recover unpaid wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and common law contract principles. "We are proud to represent North Carolina Correction Officers," said Dan Bryson of Whitfield Bryson & Mason. Mike Smith of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP said: "These workers put their own safety on the line each day. Our clients' lawsuit alleges that Defendants required their employees to work overtime without the appropriate pay required by state and federal law and have committed other wage and hour violations. This lawsuit seeks to recover wages already earned by these hard-working men and women." The team of law firms who filed this case are devoted to protecting American workers from employers who have failed to pay their workers the wages they are owed, and are national leaders in advancing the rights of workers and consumers through class actions and collective actions. Their efforts have won significant legal victories for American workers across the United States. Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP ("CGL") is a national class action and commercial litigation law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., Brooklyn, New York, St. Louis, Missouri and Boulder, Colorado. For over 30 years CGL has been successfully and aggressively advocating for our clients. We have a proven track record of winning in Court and in Congress, we specialize in representing governments, businesses and individuals in civil litigation, and have recovered billions of dollars for our clients. With offices located in North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Washington, D.C., Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP is dedicated to representing plaintiffs in class actions, mass torts, and individual actions throughout the United States. Whitfield Bryson & Mason's attorneys have decades of experience helping workers and consumers obtain justice against overwhelming odds. With a passionate and persistent focus, Whitfield Bryson & Mason has successfully recovered over $1.5 billion on behalf of their clients. DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC combines excellence in commercial litigation, class action litigation, mass tort litigation, catastrophic injury litigation, medical malpractice litigation, and civil rights litigation. Practicing nationwide—and internationally—from offices in Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and St. Louis, we are an aggressive, attentive, and creative plaintiffs' firm whose work speaks for itself—billions of dollars in recoveries in some of the highest-profile matters in U.S. history. Revered by clients and respected by defense counsel, our team gets results. Berger Montague PC is a national plaintiffs' class action law firm headquartered in Philadelphia, with offices in Minneapolis, Washington D.C., and San Diego. The Firm has played lead roles in major cases for 50 years, resulting in recoveries of over $30 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Berger Montague's Employment Law Department focuses its practice on class and collective action wage theft cases under federal and state law on behalf of employees in various industries across the country. To learn more information about the case, including how to join if you believe you were similarly harmed, please contact: Dan Bryson, Esquire Pat Wallace, Esquire Danielle Perry, Esquire WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP Tel: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com Pat@wbmllp.com DPerry@wbmllp.com [GN] NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Brewster Civil Suit Over Right to Vote ------------------------------------------------------------ BILLY JOE BREWSTER, JR., LARRY E. NORMAN, and THOMAS L. HILL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHILLIP E. BERGER, in his official capacity as Speaker Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, DAMON CIRCOSTA, STELLA ANDERSON, JEFF CARMON III, DAVID C. BLACK, KEN RAYMOND AND KAREN BRINSON BELL, in their official capacities as officers or members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00037-D (E.D.N.C., Oct. 31, 2019), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging violation of the right to vote and participate in an electoral structure to protect the integrity of the election process. The Plaintiffs are voters and a candidate in the upcoming primary elections for congress in North Carolina. North Carolina voters have been subjected to a decade of lawsuits regarding their election districts. The litigation has instituted a dizzying array of actual and threatened last-minute changes to the election process. The Plaintiffs says they brought a political gerrymandering case claim challenging the congressional districts under novel political science theories regarding "fairness" of the congressional districts. However, on June 30, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held such claims to be non-justiciable and rejected the novel political science theories advanced therein and adopted by the District Court as a justiciable ground for federal equal protection challenges, the lawsuit says. The North Carolina State Board of Elections is an agency of the North Carolina state government charged with the administration of the elections process, as well as campaign finance, and lobbying disclosure and compliance. The North Carolina House of Representatives is one of the two houses of the North Carolina General Assembly. The House is a 120-member body led by a Speaker of the House, who holds powers similar to those of the President pro-tem in the North Carolina Senate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Neal Hunter, Jr., Esq. HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC 301 N Elm Street, Suite 800 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 273-1600 Facsimile: (336) 274-4650 E-mail: rnhunterjr@greensborolaw.com - and - Conrad Boyd Sturges, III, Esq. DAVIS, STURGES & TOMLINSON, PLLC P.O. Drawer 708 Louisburg, NC 27549 Telephone: (919) 496-2137 Facsimile: (919) 496-6291 E-mail: bsturges@dstattys.com NORTIS INC: Committee Hires Dillon E. Jackson as Counsel -------------------------------------------------------- The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Nortis, Inc., seeks authorization from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to retain the Law Office of Dillon E. Jackson, PLLC, as counsel to the Committee. The Committee requires Dillon E. Jackson to represent and provide legal services to the Committee in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Dillon E. Jackson will be paid at the hourly rate of $545. Dillon E. Jackson will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Dillon E. Jackson, the firm's founding partner, assured the Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and (a) is not creditors, equity security holders or insiders of the Debtor; (b) has not been, within two years before the date of the filing of the Debtor's chapter 11 petition, directors, officers or employees of the Debtor; and (c) does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or of any class of creditors or equity security holders, by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the Debtor, or for any other reason. Dillon E. Jackson can be reached at: Dillon E. Jackson, Esq. Law Office of Dillon E. Jackson PLLC 2510 Fairview Ave E Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98102 Tel: (206) 693-3605 E-mail: djlawpllc@gmail.com About Nortis Inc. Nortis, Inc., a company that provides scientific research and development services, filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Case No. 19-13529) on Sept. 25, 2019 in Seattle, Wash. In the petition signed by Thomas Neumann, president and chief executive officer, the Debtor was estimated to have between $1 million and $10 million in both assets and liabilities. The Hon. Christopher M. Alston is the presiding judge. Karr Tuttle Campbell is the Debtor's legal counsel. OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Farfetch Limited (FTCH) Class Period: 9/21/2018 - 8/8/2019 or purchase of securities issued either in or after the September 2018 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 18, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ftch/ Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI) Class Period: 6/6/2019 - 8/28/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 18, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-olli/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] OREGON CHAI: Cosgrove Sues Over Misleading "Vanilla" Packaging -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Cosgrove, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oregon Chai, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-10686-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2019), seeks damages under consumer protection laws arising from the Defendant's misleading representations on the packaging of its vanilla chai tea products. Chai is often flavored vanilla because the flavor from this tropical orchid helps to smooth out the spiciness and enhance the sweetness. The Products are misleading because although labeled as "Vanilla," they have less real vanilla flavor than the label suggests, the Plaintiff contends. The front labels tell consumers the Product's (1) characterizing flavor is vanilla and (2) contain a sufficient amount of the characterizing food ingredient, vanilla flavoring or vanilla extract, to independently characterize the Product. The unqualified, prominent and conspicuous front label representation of "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because the Products contain flavoring other than vanilla, as revealed by "Natural Flavors" on the ingredient list, the Plaintiff asserts. The Products are misleading because they do not contain the amount, type and percentage of vanilla as a component of the flavoring in the Products, which is required by the labeling and consistent with consumer expectations. 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. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Products are sold at premium prices 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. Oregon Chai, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells powdered chai tea mix packets purporting to be flavored by vanilla, under their Oregon Chai 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 OUR TERMS FABRICATORS: Underpays Factory Workers, Alvarado Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUR TERMS FABRICATORS, INC.; GREG DARRIGO, and JOHN GALLAGHER, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06473 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Alvarado was employed by the Defendants as factory worker. Our Terms Fabricators, Inc., a New York corporation engaged in manufacturing cut, beveled or polished glass furniture tops, glass mirrors, and safety glass. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 OVERSTOCK.COM: KSF Reminds of Nov. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) Class Period: 5/9/2019 - 9/23/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ostk/ Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN) Class Period: ADSs issued either in or after the April 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ruhn/ The Chemours Company (CC) Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cc/ ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-adtn/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] PGA INC: Amendment of Schilling Suit Settlement Agreement Ordered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ERIC SCHILLING, BLAINE KROHN, and ERIK SINCLAIR, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PGA INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-202-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an order noting one significant concern, which the parties will need to address before he can grant the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement. After granting judgment in the Defendant's favor, the Plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the parties apparently reached a settlement of the remaining collective action and class claims, prompting the Seventh Circuit to remand the case for the limited purpose of the District Court conducting settlement approval. Before the District Court is the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement. Having reviewed the parties' agreement, Judge Conley notes one significant concern, which the parties will need to address before the court can grant preliminary approval. The case involves both a FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class. Of the approximately 100 employees involved, only 12 employees affirmatively have opted into the collective action, while 38 affirmatively opted out of the Rule 23 class. Material to the District Court's concern, the settlement agreement contains three release provisions: (1) a very broad, general release for the three named Plaintiffs; (2) a release by collective action members of "all wage and hour claims alleged in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, including claims arising pursuant to" the FLSA and Wisconsin law and regulations; and (3) a release by Rule 23 class members of "all wage and hour claims alleged in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, including wage and hour claims arising out of laws or regulations by the State of Wisconsin." While the Rule 23 class action members release does not expressly list any FLSA claim they may have, Judge Conley finds that the broad language releasing "all wage and hour claims alleged in the Plaintiffs' Complaint" would appear to encompass any FLSA claims. Moreover, in the proposed notice describing what collective action and class members release, there is no distinction between the FLSA collective action members and the Rule 23 class members. In choosing not to opt into the FLSA collection action, however, the individuals who are only in the Rule 23 class expressly preserved their individual FLSA claims. Indeed, the FLSA Collective Action Notice approved by the Court and distributed to the prospective members, states: "If you choose not to join this lawsuit, you will not be affected by any judgment or settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Acts claims in this case, whether favorable or unfavorable to the class. You will not be entitled to share any amounts recovered by the class. You will be free to file your own lawsuit, if you wish to do so." Consistent with that notice, the individuals who did not opt into the FLSA collective action are not participating in the settlement of these claims, nor can the counsel waive any claims retained by those individuals. Accordingly, any FLSA claims they might have should not be released by the settlement. Judge Conley cannot approve a settlement which purports to release those claims for the individuals who did not opt in to the FLSA collective action. Given the difference in the language used in the release provisions in the parties' settlement, the parties may not have intended to release the FLSA claims of those individuals who are only in the Rule 23 class. If not, they should have no problem with amending the release language in the settlement agreement and in the proposed notice to reflect clearly that individuals who did not opt into the FLSA collective action and are only members of the Rule 23 class do not release their FLSA claims, and providing the amended agreement for the Court's approval. If the parties intended for those individuals also to release their FLSA claims, however, they will need to submit supplemental briefing providing support for such a broad release. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/99k6zB from Leagle.com. Eric Schilling, Blaine Krohn & Erik Sinclair, Plaintiffs, represented by Yingtao Ho -- yh@previant.com -- The Previant Law Firm, S.C. PGA Inc., Defendant, represented by John H. Zawadsky -- jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, SC & Robert S. Driscoll -- rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Filing of Amended Complaint in "Hogan" -------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that Patrick Hogan has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint in his class action suit. On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's (PPC's) stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (i) PPC colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) PPC's revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive. On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's decision and for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Pilgrim's Pride said, "As of the date of this quarterly report, the plaintiff has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that plaintiffs in an Oklahoma lawsuit over alleged price-fixing of broiler chicken grower have not amended the consolidated complaint to comply with a Bankruptcy Court's injunction order or confirmation order. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against the company (PPC) and four other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS, or the Grower Litigation. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it considered and granted only certain other defendants' motions challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018. Rulings on the motion are pending. In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, or the Bankruptcy Court, enjoined plaintiffs from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order relating to PPC's bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 and 2009. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009. On March 13, 2018, PPC notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy Court's injunction. To date, plaintiffs have not amended the consolidated complaint to comply with the Bankruptcy Court's injunction order or the confirmation order. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues to Defend Plant Workers Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suits initiated by the Plant Workers. Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the company (PPC) and a number of other poultry producers, as well as WMS (Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company) and Agri Stats, in the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing plant level non-supervisory production and maintenance workers ("Plant Workers"). Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present. The four cases are Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-2521; Earnest v. Perdue Farms, Inc. et al, Case No. 19-cv-02680; Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al, Case No. 19-cv-02960; and Avila v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al, Case No. 19-cv-03018 (together, the "Wages Litigation"). The Earnest complaint was consolidated with the Jien complaint by a Court order on October 8, 2019. The deadline to respond to the Jien complaint is set for November 15, 2019. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Limited Stay of Discovery Extended Until June -------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the court in the class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, has ordered that the limited stay of discovery be extended through June 27, 2020. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company (PPC) and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. Between December 8, 2017 and June 21, 2019, 31 individual direct action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; U.S. Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat Distributors, Inc., et al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03471; Jetro Holdings, LLC, v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-4616; The Kroger Co., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04534; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for Central Grocers, Inc. et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee Flowers & Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05345; BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05877; United Supermarkets LLC, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06693; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06316 (transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on September 17, 2018, following Defendants' successful motion to transfer); Shamrock Foods Company et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-7284; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Quirch Foods, LLC, f/k/a Quirch Foods Co. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-08511; Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00354, Hooters of America, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00390; Darden Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00530; Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00638; Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19- cv-01283; Conagra Brands, Inc. et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02190; Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02758; Save Mart Supermarkets v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02805; Walmart Inc., et al. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03915 (transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on June 11, 2019, following Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to transfer); Services Group of America, Inc. v. Tyson Food, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04194; Restaurants of America, Inc. et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-04824; Anaheim Wings, d/b/a Hooters of Anaheim et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-05229; Amigos Meat Distributors, LP et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-05424; PJ Food Service, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-6141; and The Golub Corporation et al. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-06955) were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by individual direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. On June 20, 2019, an additional direct action complaint (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01605) was filed with U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the allegations of which also largely mirror those in the class action complaints. Substantial completion of document discovery for most defendants, including PPC, occurred on July 18, 2018. The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the direct action complaints with the class complaints with any necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will be consolidated. On June 21, 2019, the United States Department of Justice filed a motion to intervene and stay discovery in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a period of six months. Following a hearing on June 27, 2019, on June 28, 2019, the Court granted the government's motion to intervene, and ordered a limited three month stay of discovery until September 27, 2019. On July 1, 2019, the Department of Justice issued a subpoena to PPC in connection with its investigation. On September 20, 2019, the Department of Justice moved to extend the partial discovery stay for an additional six months. On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered that the limited stay of discovery be extended through June 27, 2020. Prior to the Court issuing that order, the scheduling order had required class certification briefing and expert reports proceeding from April 13, 2020 to December 14, 2020, and summary judgment to proceed 60 days after the Court rules on motions for class certification. Some or all of these dates may change given the Court's order extending the discovery stay. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PLANTRONICS INC: Bassuk Sues over 37% Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- FELICE BASSUK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLANTRONICS, INC.; JOSEPH BURTON; CHARLES BOYNTON; and PAMELA STRAYER, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07481 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2019) is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Plantonics securities between July 2, 2019 and November 5, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Plantronics designs, manufactures, and markets integrated communications and collaboration solutions such as headsets, Open SIP desktop phones, audio and videoconferencing, and cloud management and analytics software solutions. On November 5, 2019, the Company disclosed a $65 million reduction in channel inventory by reducing sales to channel partners and slashed its fiscal 2020 guidance, expecting revenue between $1.72 billion and $1.81 billion and adjusted EBITDA between $282 million and $323 million. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $14.44 per share, or 37%, to close at $25 per share on November 6, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the class period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to artificially boost sales; (2) that the Company's internal control over inventory levels was not effective; (3) that the Company had not adequately monitored inventory levels ahead of multiple product launches, where the new models would displace demand for aging products; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and lacked reasonable basis. Plantronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets lightweight communications headsets and headset accessories and services. The Company also manufactures and markets specialty telephone products, such as amplified telephone headsets and specialty telephones for hearing-impaired users, and noise-cancelling headsets for use in high-noise environments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES: Removes Bandril Suit to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ARLENE BANDRIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Case No. RG19038227) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 12, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07439. The case is assigned to Richard Seeborg. Plastikon Industries Inc manufactures plastics products. The Company offers injection molding, mold design and build, part decoration and assembly, contract manufacturing, thermoforming, and rotational molding services. Plastikon Industries serves medical, automotive, and electronics industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mollie M. Burks, Esq. Anna T. Pham, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 E-mail: mburks@grsm.com apham@grsm.com PSM HOME HEALTH: Edwards Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PSM HOME HEALTH, INC., and PETERS MCINDOE, Case No. 4:19-cv-00805-KGB (E.D. Ark., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours a week for the Defendants on a regular basis. Despite their overtime work, the Plaintiff and others were not properly compensated for all hours or all overtime hours worked each week as a direct result of the policies and procedures implemented by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was paid less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from October 2017 to October 2018, and again from August 2019 to September 2019, as an hourly-paid Caregiver employee. PSM Home Health, Inc., is a home healthcare services provider serving clients in and around central Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Allison Koile, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com allison@sanfordlawfirm.com PUMPCO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Lackey Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Lackey and Jose Zamora, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PUMPCO ENERGY SERVICES, INC., SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C., and SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-00269 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of their failure to pay the Plaintiffs and co-workers lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Co-Workers overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week even though the Defendants were aware of how many hours the Plaintiffs and the Co-Workers worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Equipment Operators. The Defendants are oilfield services companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com RAYTHEON COMPANY: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Notice is given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, case no. 1:19-cv-02818-PJS-DTS, on behalf of public common shareholders of Raytheon Company (RTN) who held Raytheon securities as of the record date on September 10, 2019 (the "Class Period"), and have been harmed by Raytheon's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to United Technologies Corporation. ("UTC"). Under the terms of the transaction, Company's shareholders will receive 2.3348 fully paid and nonassessable shares of UTC common stock in exchange for each share of Raytheon common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate and that the Proxy Statement contained materially misleading information concerning the financial projections for Raytheon, UTC, and the Combined Company. The Proxy was an essential link in accomplishing the Merger, which undervalued Raytheon and caused Plaintiff and the Class to suffer financial loss in that they did not retain a fair equity stake in the post-Merger Combined Company, and the Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The special meeting of Raytheon stockholders to vote on the Merger was held on October 11, 2019. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 31, 2019. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/raytheon-company. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2019 Top Rated Lawyer. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America Tel: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] RUHNN HOLDING: KSF Reminds of Dec. 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) Class Period: 5/9/2019 - 9/23/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ostk/ Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN) Class Period: ADSs issued either in or after the April 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ruhn/ The Chemours Company (CC) Class Period: 2/16/2017 - 8/1/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 9, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cc/ ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) Class Period: 2/28/2019 - 10/9/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 16, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-adtn/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] RUHNN HOLDING: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruhnn Holding Limited (NASDAQ: RUHN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 19-cv-06162, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ruhnn American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Ruhnn securities ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public offering, you have until December 6, 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 number of shares purchased. Ruhnn describes itself as China's largest key opinion leader ("KOL") facilitator and the largest KOL facilitator in China's e-commerce market. So-called KOLs are essentially social media influencers, i.e., individuals who create content on social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Tik Tok, and Instagram with the hope of garnering a large public following. As a purported KOL facilitator, Ruhnn contracts with social media influencers who are paid to promote, market, and advertise products and services to their fans and followers. Ruhnn claims to recruit, train, and manage KOLs and provide them with analytical support. The Company describes such activities as "incubating" KOLs. Ruhnn's KOLs primarily market women's apparel, cosmetics, shoes, handbags, and other fashion products on social media platforms popular in China, such as Miaopai, Tik Tok, and Kuaishou. Ruhnn's KOLs provide marketing services both to Ruhnn-owned and -operated brands and stores and to Ruhnn's third-party customers. The Company describes sales of products through Ruhnn's own stores as the Company's product sales business, which Ruhnn also refers to as its "full-service model." The majority of these online stores are located or hosted on third-party ecommerce platforms and are operated and marketed in the name of Ruhnn's KOLs. As of December 31, 2018, Ruhnn purportedly owned and operated ninety-one online stores. Ruhnn earns revenue from these product sales by taking a percentage of the sales price at the time the product is sold. The Company's full-service model is its largest and most important operating segment, accounting for over 88% of Ruhnn's total net revenues for the nine months ended December 31, 2018. Ruhnn also derives revenue from its service business, which Ruhnn refers to as its "platform model." Ruhnn launched its platform model in 2017 to market its KOLs and KOL services to third parties, such as brands, retailers, designers, and manufacturers. As of December 31, 2018, Ruhnn claimed to have over 500 customers using its platform services. Ruhnn earns fees for these services under a variety of arrangements. On March 6, 2019, Ruhnn filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on April 2, 2019 (the Form F-1, together with all amendments, is referred to herein as the "Registration Statement"). One day later, on April 3, 2019, the Company filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement was used to sell to the investing public approximately 10 million Ruhnn ADSs, representing 50 million Ruhnn Class A ordinary shares, at $12.50 per share. Defendants generated $125 million in gross offering proceeds from their sale of Ruhnn ADSs in the IPO. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's online stores had declined by nearly 40%; (ii) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly 44%; (iii) as a result, the Company's net revenues derived from its full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and (iv) as a result, defendants' statements about Ruhnn's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On June 14, 2019, Ruhnn reported its fiscal year and fourth quarter 2019 financial results. These results were for the quarter prior to the quarter in which defendants had conducted the IPO. In the fiscal 2019 press release, Ruhnn reported that, as of March 31, 2019, the Company only had fifty-six stores in operation, which indicated that the Company had closed nearly 40% of the ninety-one stores defendants reported operating in the Registration Statement. The press release also disclosed that Ruhnn's product sales had fallen 46% sequentially and grown by a meager 1.4% year over year. At the same time, Ruhnn's reported results in its service platform business were entirely eclipsed by the meager growth in the full-service product sales business. Revenue from platform services was $7.5 million and $22 million for the quarter and fiscal year, respectively, versus $28 million and $140 million in product sales for the quarter and year. Gross margin across the Company's revenue streams had also declined eighty basis points year over year, reflecting the Company's failure to approach profitability, as its most important operating segment, its full-service segment, had suffered a significant contraction prior to the IPO. Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material adverse facts omitted from Ruhnn's Registration Statement, Ruhnn ADSs have fallen substantially below their IPO price, damaging Plaintiff and Class members. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, 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] SEALED AIR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-sealed-air-class-action-lawsuit.html) announced that it filed a class action on behalf of an institutional investor seeking to represent purchasers of Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE:SEE) common stock during the period between November 5, 2014 and August 6, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Fund v. Sealed Air Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10161. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Sealed Air common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Sealed Air class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Sealed Air class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Sealed Air class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Sealed Air class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Sealed Air class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss the Sealed Air class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-sealed-air-class-action-lawsuit.html. The Sealed Air class action lawsuit charges Sealed Air and certain of its current and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sealed Air specializes in providing packing solutions to the food, e-Commerce, electronics, and industrial markets. Two of Sealed Air's most iconic brands include Bubble Wrap packaging and Cryovac shrink wrap, which was acquired in 1998 from W.R. Grace & Co. ("Grace"). The Sealed Air class action lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Sealed Air's business, operations, and financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Sealed Air's deduction of $1.49 billion in connection with a settlement of asbestos liabilities was indefensible and done for the improper purpose of artificially inflating Sealed Air's financial results; that Sealed Air had switched auditors pursuant to a conflicted and improper process and in order to help facilitate defendants' efforts to engage in accounting fraud; and that Sealed Air had artificially inflated its earnings, cash flows, and operating income during the Class Period. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, Sealed Air common stock traded at artificially inflated prices of more than $52 per share during the Class Period. Then, on August 6, 2018, Sealed Air revealed that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") requesting documents and information concerning Sealed Air's accounting for income taxes and financial reporting and disclosures. Analysts widely viewed the SEC investigation as relating to Sealed Air's improper tax deductions. On this news, the price of Sealed Air stock fell over 5% to close at $41 per share on August 7, 2018. In June 2019, Sealed Air terminated its Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") "for cause" following the receipt of a second subpoena. Subsequently, the government investigation into Sealed Air was expanded into a criminal inquiry and included an investigation into the termination of Sealed Air's CFO and Sealed Air's auditor hiring process. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Tel: 800-449-4900 Websites: https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN] SEMGROUP CORP: Ferrell Asserts Breach of FLSA in Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SemGroup Corporation. The case is styled as Robert Ferrell, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SemGroup Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00610-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla., Nov. 12, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. SemGroup transports oil, natural gas and other products across North America through a network of pipelines, processing plants, refinery-connected storage facilities and deep-water marine terminals. The company began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol 'SEMG' in 2010.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A Josephson, Esq. Josephson Dunlap 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a company subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana. This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against the company (SCI) and its subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the suit. Service Corporation said, "The case has continued against our subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors. However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and services in the United States and Canada. The company operates through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit Over Sales Practices Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Caroline Bernstein, on behalf of herself and Marla Urofsky on behalf of Rhea Schwartz, and both on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. and Service Corporation International, Case No. 2:17-cv 04960-GAM; in the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding our Forest Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania and our Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose, Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and services in the United States and Canada. The company operates through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. SHAKE SHACK: Gift Cards Not Usable by Blind People, Camacho Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASON CAMACHO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. SHAKE SHACK INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06166 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille so they may 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. Because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant violates the ADA, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's 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 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. Shake Shack is an American fast casual restaurant chain based in New York City. It started out as a hot dog cart inside Madison Square Park in 2001, and its popularity steadily grew. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., #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 SHARON CALLAHAN: Underpays Cosmetologists, Bolden Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CHERYL BOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHARON CALLAHAN, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-802-KGB (E.D. Arkansas, Nov. 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Defendant is the owner of Hair Tech Studios in Arkansas. The Plaintiff Bolden was employed by the Defendant as cosmetologist.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Carman Suit Arbitration Deal Discovery OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery on Issues Relating to Enforcement of Purported Arbitration Agreement in the case captioned ANASTASIA CARMAN, Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00087-JHM-HBB. (W.D. Ky.). Carman's complaint presents six claims brought on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a class action under Kentucky State Law. The claims stem from Carman's employment as a registered nurse with Signature Healthcare. Her employment has since ended. Carman's motion seeks permission to begin discovery related to Signature's intention to seek enforcement of the Mediation and Arbitration Agreement signed by the parties. Carman raises several claims which she argues contain mixed questions of law and fact that extend beyond the scope of the documents already filed with the Court. Carman's motion primarily focuses on two issues: (1) whether the agreement violated KRS Section 336.700, which at the time the agreement was executed expressly prohibited condition of employment upon arbitration agreements, and (2) whether the method by which Signature required Carman (and similarly situated employees) to approve and agree to onboarding documents was procedurally unconscionable. Carman argues the terms of her employment contract are insufficiently clear, and therefore void. She alleges Signature engaged in a bait and switch wherein the Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan provided to new employees permits class arbitrations and is later contradicted by the Mediation and Arbitration Agreement. The Court opines that Carman has shown a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the agreement to arbitrate. A reasonable finder of fact could conclude that the onboarding process by which Carman was required to sign employment documents was procedurally unconscionable. Carman has also presented genuine questions as to whether the agreement to arbitrate was invalid under Kentucky law at the time of its execution and whether the parties could reasonably have been expected to be bound by its terms, the Court adds. Accordingly, the Court grants Carman's Motion for Discovery on Issues Relating to Enforcement of Purported Arbitration Agreement. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3op3jpz from Leagle.com Anastasia Carman, on Behalf of herself and All Others Similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark N. Foster, P.O. Box 192, Rockwood, TN 37854 Signature Healthcare, LLC, Stakeholder Payroll Services, LLC & LP Calhoun, LLC, Defendants, represented by J. Andrew Inman - jinman@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC. SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (WTRH) Class Period: 5/17/2018 - 8/8/2019 including shares acquired in connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/ Altria Group, Inc. (MO) Class Period: 12/20/2018 - 9/24/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mo/ Match Group, Inc. (MTCH) Class Period: 8/6/2019 - 9/25/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mtch/ SmileDirectClub, Inc. (SDC) Class Period: shares issued either in or after the September 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sdc/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Tanis Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned SUZANNE TANIS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. et al, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2333-BAS-BGS. (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Suzanne Tanis filed a complaint in San Diego Superior Court against Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. Southwest removed the case to the California District Court and answered the complaint. Southwest moved to compel arbitration, which the District Court granted and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. A few months later, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, stating she was dismissing her case without prejudice. The District Court denied Plaintiff's request and informed her that she could file a proper noticed motion requesting dismissal of her case. Plaintiff has done so and moves to dismiss her entire case without prejudice. The District Court finds that there is no evidence of forum shopping. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to pursue her Private Attorneys' Generals Act (PAGA) claims rather than her individual and class claims. The Court cannot force Plaintiff to initiate arbitration, as Southwest requests, if she instead chooses to drop her claims and pursue non-arbitrable claims. Therefore, the District Court finds no legal prejudice to Southwest. If Plaintiff ever does decide to pursue her individual or class claims, she acknowledges she must do so in arbitration, thus, Southwest is not losing any legal rights. And if Plaintiff decides to pursue her claims in arbitration, Southwest will not be forced to repeat any work or expend any unnecessary resources. Without any legal prejudice to Southwest, the Court finds no basis to deny Plaintiff's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the District Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the case without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yywj36g8 from Leagle.com Suzanne Tanis, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by Hali M. Anderson , Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92103 & Vilmarie Cordero , Graham Hollis APC, 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92103 Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, represented by Brian Davis Berry - brian.berry@ogletreedeakins.com - Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Nikolas Trpe Djordjevski – nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com - Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC & Lisa Mireille Bowman - lisa.bowman@ogletreedeakins.com - Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.. SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Refuses to Decertify Class in Quinn Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion for Class Decertification in the case captioned THOMAS QUINN and THERESA QUINN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16 CV 2021, (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs brought the class action, alleging that defendant, a home loan servicer, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In March 2019, the District Court certified (i) Class A which consists of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin consumers who were represented by an attorney but nonetheless received home visits from defendant's field agents, and (ii) Class B, which consists of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin consumers who received allegedly misleading door hangers from defendant's agents. The Seventh Circuit denied defendant permission to appeal the March 2019 order. Defendant now seeks to sunder the certified classes and moves to dismiss, or in the alternative strike or reconsider certification of, the class claims of non-Illinois residents. It argues, under the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1781 (2017), constitutional due process precludes me from exercising specific jurisdiction over it with respect to the claims of class members who are not resident in Illinois because those claims arise from defendant's conduct outside of Illinois, and defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction in the matter. Plaintiffs respond that defendant has waived its objections to personal jurisdiction and that Bristol-Myers requires no such conclusion. Among other things, Judge Bucklo states that any efficiency gained in the case by severing Indiana and Wisconsin consumers from Class A and Class B would likely be a net loss to the federal judiciary as it could generate nearly-identical actions in those forums. Judge Bucklo also points out, "defendant provides no convincing reason to reconsider my class certification under Rule 54(b)." Accordingly, Judge Bucklo denies the Defendants' motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3f6bbbs from Leagle.com Thomas Quinn & Theresa Quinn, Plaintiffs, represented by Deadra Woods Stokes , Consumer Legal Group, P.C,. 4747 West Lincoln Mall Drive Suite 410 Matteson, IL, 60443-3821 & Al Hofeld, Jr. , Law Offices of Al Hofeld Jr., LLC, 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3120, Chicago, IL 60602 Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Gabriel A. Crowson , King & Jurgens, LLC, 301 S College St Fl 30 MAC D1053-300, Charlotte, NC, 28202, Jeffrey R. Seewald - jseewald@mcglinchey.com - Mcglinchey Stafford, Pllc, pro hac vice, Gregg M. Barbakoff , Maurice Wutscher LLP, 105 W. Madison Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60602, James V. Noonan - jnoonan@noonanandlieberman.com - Noonan & Lieberman, LTD, Robert Edward Haney -rhaney@noonanandlieberman.com - Noonan & Lieberman, Ltd., Rocio Herrera , Noonan & Lieberman, 105 W Adams St Ste 1800, Chicago, IL, 60603-6235 & Ruth B. Sosniak - rsosniak@noonanandlieberman.com - Noonan and Lieberman LTD. STATE COLLECTION: Certification Bid in Thorson Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MICHAEL THORSON, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-1463, (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge William Duffin granted Plaintiff's Motion to Stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. The class complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2vu2vj2 from Leagle.com Michael Thorson, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Eldridge - meldridge@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP. Cynthia Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Ben J. Slatky - bslatky@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Jesse Fruchter - jfruchter@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, John D. Blythin - jblythin@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Mark A. Eldridge , Ademi & O'Reilly LLP. STERICYCLE INC: Settlement of Illinois Suit Wins Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has granted final approval of the Illinois Securities Class Action Settlement. On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in the Company's public offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share of the Company's mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, its directors and certain of its current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on August 4, 2016 and a Corrected Amended Complaint on October 21, 2016. On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19, 2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion. On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a further Amended Complaint, alleging additional corrective disclosures and extending the purported class period through February 21, 2018. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on May 25, 2018. The Motion was fully briefed on July 13, 2018, and awaited a ruling by the Court. The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached an agreement in principle for settlement in December 2018 (the "Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement"). As the Company disclosed on December 20, 2018, the terms of the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement provided that the Company would establish a common fund of $45.0 million, from which would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class, attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named class representatives and all costs of notice and administration. In the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever. The Company entered into the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. On February 14, 2019, the Company executed a definitive written settlement agreement, which incorporated the terms of the agreement in principle announced in December 2018. The Settlement incorporated the terms of the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, described above. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the Securities Class Action. On February 25, 2019, plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action filed Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement and Authorizing Dissemination of Notice of Settlement. The Preliminary Approval Motion asked the Court to preliminarily approve the Settlement, to approve the manner and content of the notice to be given to potential class members, and to set a schedule for, among other things, deadlines for potential class members to file claims, object to the Settlement, or seek exclusion from the Settlement class. The Court approved the Preliminary Approval Motion on March 12, 2019, and the Company funded the settlement on March 25, 2019. The large majority of the $45.0 million common fund has been funded by the Company's insurers. The Court held a fairness hearing on July 22, 2019, at which it granted final approval of the Settlement. At the hearing, the Court took under advisement the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded to plaintiffs’ counsel from the $45.0 million settlement. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and commercial businesses in the United States and internationally. Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. STERICYCLE INC: Settlement Opt-Outs File Own Complaints ------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that certain class members have opted out of the Final Settlement in the Contract Class Action Lawsuits and have filed lawsuits against the Company. Beginning on March 12, 2013, the Company was served with several class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted, among other things, that the Company had imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaints sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. These related actions were ultimately transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a class of "all persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003 through the date of trial resided in the United States (except Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as 'Small Quantity' or 'SQ' customer, and were charged and paid more than their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle's medical waste disposal goods and services pursuant to Stericycle's automated price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be excluded from the class." The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached an agreement in principle for settlement in July 2017, which was subsequently documented in a definitive settlement agreement on October 17, 2017. The Settlement provided a global resolution of all cases and claims against the Company in the MDL Action. It also provided that the Company would establish a common fund of $295.0 million from which would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class, attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named class representatives and all costs of notice and administration. It also provided that the Company's existing contracts with customers would remain in force, while it would also establish as part of the Settlement guidelines for future price increases and provide customers additional transparency regarding such increases. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the MDL Action. The court held a fairness hearing on March 8, 2018 and granted approval of the Proposed MDL Settlement that same day. The Proposed MDL Settlement became finally effective on June 7, 2018, and the Company funded the Final Settlement on July 6, 2018. Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the Company will defend and resolve those actions. Stericycle said, "The Company has accrued its estimate of the probable loss for these collective matters, which is not material." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and commercial businesses in the United States and internationally. Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. SUNDIAL GROWERS: Faces Another Suit for Hiding Return of Cannabis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Max A. Cherney, writing for Market Watch, reports that shareholders filed another class action against Nasdaq-listed cannabis producer Sundial Growers Inc. for allegedly failing to disclose that Zenabis Global Inc. returned 554 kilograms of weed because it was un-sellable. The allegations were first reported by MarketWatch in August. The returned marijuana contained mold, bits of rubber gloves, among other non-cannabis materials and was returned by Zenabis, according to people familiar with the matter. The batch was worth approximately C$2.5 million ($1.9 million) at the time. The class action suit, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleges that Sundial's prospectus did not "disclose that: (i) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations to Zenabis; and (ii) because of material quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis from Sundial, valued at approximately US$1.9 million (C$2.5 million)." In a separate court filing, the plaintiff said that the lawsuit was related to another lawsuit filed against Sundial earlier this month. The Alberta-based company called the prior class action suit's allegations "baseless." Sundial shares were down 2.2% in early afternoon trading Friday, as the ETFMG Altnerative Harvest gained 1.1%. [GN] SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims in the Mutual Funds ERISA class action suit. On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiffs purported to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs. On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the District Court. After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2016. Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery, plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint on December 19, 2017 which among other things named five new defendants. On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second amended consolidated complaint. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was filed on January 12, 2018, and on January 16, 2018 the plaintiffs filed for motion for class certification. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted by the District Court on May 2, 2018, which held that all claims prior to March 11, 2005 have been dismissed as well as dismissing three individual defendants from the action. On June 27, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 29, 2019, the District Court dismissed RidgeWorth Capital Management, Inc. from the lawsuit and on July 16, 2019, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claim for successor liability. On October 3, 2019, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims. The surviving claims have been placed on a civil trial calendar for early 2020. SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust Bank that provides various financial services for consumers, businesses, corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit entities in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer and Wholesale. SunTrust Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. TWITTER INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 30 Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company Twitter, Inc. (TWTR). 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. Twitter, Inc. (TWTR) Class Period: August 6, 2019 - October 23, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 30, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/twitter-inc-loss-form?wire=3 The filed complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated Twitter's common share price and operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Twitter common stock by misrepresenting the Company's operating condition and future business prospects. The scheme was perpetrated by making positive statements about Twitter's business while defendants knew, or disregarded with deliberate recklessness, certain adverse facts. When defendants' prior misrepresentations were disclosed and became apparent to the market, the price of Twitter's common stock fell precipitously. To learn more about the Twitter, 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. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. 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 Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] TYSON FOODS: Bid to Nix Okla. Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The defendants' motion to dismiss the case styled, In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, is still pending, according to Tyson Foods, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2019. On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a class action complaint against the Company and certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on [g]rower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of artificially depressing [g]rower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. The Company said, "We and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2017. That motion is pending." Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. UNITED INDUSTRIES: Reaches $2.5MM Settlement in Spectracide Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Classaura announced that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving United Industries Corporation ("UIC"), manufacturer of Spectracide Concentrate herbicide products. The proposed class action settlement establishes a $2,500,000 settlement fund. Class members may be eligible for cash payments of up to $25 per household. On September 18th, 2019, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder, preliminarily approved a settlement of a lawsuit between UIC and purchasers of Spectracide Concentrate products. The lawsuit alleges that UIC labeled its Spectracide® Concentrate herbicide products in a manner that was misleading regarding the application rates of the products. UIC denies the allegations and any wrongdoing. To avoid the expense and distraction of litigation, the parties have reached a settlement that will provide monetary recovery as detailed below. Class members who purchased any herbicide product sold under the "Spectracide(R)" tradename in a "concentrate" product form (in other words, designed to be manually mixed by consumers with water prior to use on targeted vegetation) on or after September 21, 2013 until November 1, 2019, purchased in any state, for personal or household use and not for resale or distribution, may be eligible for a cash payment of up to $6.25 in cash from the settlement fund for each valid claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four (4) claims per household. Claims can be submitted online at the class website www.MakesUpToSettlement.com. Claims must be submitted by January 20, 2020. Class members may request to be excluded from the class ("opt out" of the settlement), comment on the settlement, or object to the settlement, but also must do so by January 20, 2020. Class members who do nothing will not receive any payment and will bound by the Court's decision. Your rights and option--and the deadlines to exercise them--are only summarized in this press release. A Long Form Notice describes, in full, how to file a claim, object, or exclude yourself, and provides other important information. For more information and to obtain a Long Form Notice, claim form or other documents, visit www.MakesUpToSettlement.com. You may also contact the Settlement Administrator by emailing Contact@MakesUpToSettlement.com, or by writing to: Spectracide® Class Action Settlement, 1718 Peachtree St NW #1080, Atlanta, GA 30309, or by calling 1-888-978-8269. [GN] UNITI GROUP: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Uniti Group Inc. ("Uniti" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: UNIT) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Uniti from April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Uniti investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleged Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's financial results were not sustainable because its customer Windstream had defaulted on its unsecured notes; (2) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the December 30, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stewart Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON L. STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP; ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES LP; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SECURITY SYSTEMS GP, INC.; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION DEFENSE SERVICE LP; STAFF PRO, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV40866 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Stewart was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee. Universal Protection Service Inc. provides security solutions. The Company offers access control, closed circuit television, fire alarm, intrusion detection, physical security, parking equipment, and visitor management systems. Universal Protection Service serves corporate, airports, educational, and residential sectors throughout United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. Roy K. Suh, Esq. 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Daniel@kicklawfirm.com Roy@kicklawfirm.com UPSIDE GADING: Cal. App. Dismisses Appeal in Brown Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SHEILLA BROWN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UPSIDE GADING, LP, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. A157685, (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three, dismissed an appeal of the Defendants of a trial court order on broad claim releases. Plaintiff Sheilla Brown brought the class action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons against defendants Upside Gading, LP and Upside Management Company, Inc. (Upside) for alleged violations of the City of Hayward's Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance. According to plaintiff, a tenant in low-income, rent-controlled housing owned and managed by Upside, Upside claimed an exemption to the ordinance based upon misleading information and thereafter imposed upon the often non-English-speaking tenant putative class members illegal rent increases, charged them excessive late fees, and failed to pay required security deposit interest in violation of local and state laws. After Upside representatives approached the tenant putative class members in the evening in their respective units with pre-written releases from the class action that contained misleading, coercive and inadequate information, along with pre-written checks as "compensation" for past rent increases and other payments, plaintiffs sought and obtained the trial court order dated June 19, 2019, that is at the heart of the current appeal. The trial court entered an order invalidating the broad releases of claims signed by approximately 26 tenant putative class members and requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding a corrective notice for the putative class after the court found said releases contained misleading and one-sided information regarding the underlying lawsuit. After Upside appealed the trial court order, the Appellate Court stayed briefing and ordered Upside to submit a letter brief either requesting to dismiss this appeal or explaining why the appellate court should not dismiss the appeal for the reason that it is taken from a non-appealable order. Upside responded with a letter brief arguing that the trial court order is appealable as an injunctive order within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(6) because it mandates certain actions on their part with respect to the putative class members. Plaintiffs, in turn, requested dismissal of the appeal on the ground that section 904.1 provides no basis for appealing a standard interlocutory order such as the current one. The Appellate Court agree with plaintiffs and accordingly, dismiss the appeal. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 17, 2019 Order at https://tinyurl.com/y3ejc39p from Leagle.com. VALLI PRODUCE: Hill Sues over Biometric Data Collections -------------------------------------------------------- BELVA JOYCE HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLI PRODUCE OF EVANSTON, INC; and VALLI PRODUCE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019CH13196 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 13, 2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Prior to taking the Plaintiff's biometric, the Defendants did not inform the Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected, stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of biometrics. Valli Produce Inc. distributes and supplies food products. The Company offers fruits, vegetables, canned food, dairy and meat products, sauce, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, chips, and other related food products. Valli Produce operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Mise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com VIVINT SOLAR: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 11 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint Solar, Inc. (NYSE: VSLR) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Vivint securities between March 5, 2019 and September 26, 2019, (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/vslr. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company engaged in fraudulent practices, including forging customer contracts; (2) as a result, the Company's reported sales and megawatts installed were overstated; (3) these practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny: (4) as a result, the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely impacted; and (5) as a result, Vivint's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/vslr or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Vivint you have until December 11, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com [GN] VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint Solar, Inc. ("Vivint" or the "Company") (NYSE: VSLR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Eastern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-06165, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Vivint securities between March 5, 2019 and September 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Vivint securities between March 5, 2019 and September 26, 2019, you have until December 11, 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. Vivint offers solar energy systems to residential customers through a direct-to-home sales model. 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) the Company engaged in fraudulent practices, including forging customer contracts; (ii) as a result, the Company's reported sales and megawatts installed were overstated; (iii) these practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; (iv) as a result, the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely impacted; and (v) 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. On September 27, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report alleging that "28 undisclosed lawsuits . . . specifically allege Vivint forged customer contracts or otherwise engaged in fraud or deception." On this news, Vivint's share price fell $0.14 per share, or over 2%, to close at $6.55 per share on September 27, 2019, on unusually high trading volume. 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] VMW INVESTMENTS: Hires Integra Realty as Real Estate Appraiser -------------------------------------------------------------- VMW Investments, LLC, and its debtor-affiliates, seek authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas to employ Integra Realty Resources, as real estate appraiser to the Debtors. VMW Investments requires Integra Realty to appraise the Debtor's real property located at 4200-4304 Airport Freeway, Fort Worth, Texas 76117; 3600 William D. Tate Avenue, Grapevine, Texas 76051; and 221 Bedford Road, Bedford, TX 76022. Integra Realty will be paid a flat fee of $15,000. Integra Realty will also be paid $350 per hour for any necessary testimony or court appearances that may be required. Integra Realty will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Alan Pursley, partner of Integra Realty Resources, assured the Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not represent any interest adverse to the Debtors and its estates. Integra Realty can be reached at: Alan Pursley INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES 7080 Camp Bowie Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 76116 Tel: (817) 736-8000 Fax: (817) 763-8000 About VMW Investments VMW Investments, LLC, and VMW Bedford, LLC, own and operate three pieces of commercial real property located in Fort Worth, Grapevine, and Bedford, Texas. VMW Investments owns the tracts of real property located at 4200-4304 Airport Freeway, Fort Worth, Texas 76117 and 3600 William D. Tate Avenue, Grapevine, Texas 76051. VMW Bedford owns the tract of real property located at 221 Bedford Road, Bedford, TX 76022. The companies generate revenue through leases of the properties. On June 30, 2019, VMW Investments and VMW Bedford sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 19-42644). At the time of the filing, each Debtor was estimated to have assets of between $1 million and $10 million and liabilities of the same range. The cases are assigned to Judge Mark X. Mullin. Bonds Ellis Eppich Schafer Jones LLP is the Debtors' legal counsel. WAITR HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Waitr Holdings, Inc. Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. Waitr Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: WTRH) Class Period: May 17, 2018 - August 8, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Defendants had artificially bolstered profits and revenues by unilaterally raising prices in breach of customer contracts and failed to properly reimburse drivers for expenses; (2) that providing services at the low take rate of 15% was not sustainable; (3) that its labor model was inefficient and resulted in rising, unsustainable costs; (4) that its financial statements were not true, accurate or reliable; and (5) that the Company's software provided little or no competitive advantages. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. Contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] WAITR HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 26 Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (WTRH) Class Period: 5/17/2018 - 8/8/2019 including shares acquired in connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 26, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/ Altria Group, Inc. (MO) Class Period: 12/20/2018 - 9/24/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mo/ Match Group, Inc. (MTCH) Class Period: 8/6/2019 - 9/25/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mtch/ SmileDirectClub, Inc. (SDC) Class Period: shares issued either in or after the September 2019 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 2, 2019 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sdc/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] WANDA SPORTS: Faces Fu Suit Over Decline in IPO Share Prices ------------------------------------------------------------ Cherry Fu, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WANDA SPORTS GROUP COMPANY LIMITED, HENGMING YANG, HONGHUI LIAO, LEN ZHANG, PHILIPPE BLATTER, ANDREW MESSICK, DONGWEI YANG, EDWIN FUNG, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAP ITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, CLSA LIMITED, AND TIGER BROKERS 0VZ) LIMITED, Case No. 3:19-cv-01852-BR (D. Ore., Nov. 18, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired Wanda Sports' securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with Wanda Sports' July 26, 2019 initial public offering. In July 2019, the Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 23.8 million American Depository Shares to the investing public at $8.00 per share, pursuant to the Registration Statement. The Company received gross proceeds of approximately $ 190.4 million. On June 7, 2019, Wanda Sports filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form F-1, which would be used for the IPO. On July 29, 2019, Wanda sports filed with the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO of common stock on Form 42484, which forms part of the Registration Statement. The Registration statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation, according to the complaint. The price of Wanda Sports' securities has plummeted since the IPO. The highest Wanda Sports ADSs closed since its IPO is $5.36. Wanda Securities have traded significantly lower than the IPO price of $8.00 per ADS. By the commencement of this action, Wanda Sports' securities have lost nearly 60% of their IPO value--damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of Wanda Sports' ADSs, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Wanda Sports securities pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO. Wanda sports purports to be a global sports events, media and marketing platform with significant intellectual property rights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq. RANSOM, GILBERTSON MARTIN & RATLIFF, LLP 8401 NE Halsey Street, Suite 208 Portland, OR Phone: 503-226-3664 - and - Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com WELLBRIDGE CLUB: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Lee Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lee, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. WELLBRIDGE CLUB MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01074-KK-LF (D.N.M., Nov. 18, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to properly pay wages and overtime pay to the Plaintiff as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Mexico Wage and Hour Act, and the City of Albuquerque Minimum Wage Ordinance. The Plaintiff and the putative class routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and the Defendant routinely failed to pay them overtime wages in violation of the FLSA, NMWHA, and AMWO, says the complaint. The Defendants have routinely improperly reduced hours worked by employees, which has resulted in the Defendants failing to pay the employees earned compensation. The Plaintiff was employed as a personal trainer for the Defendant at Riverpoint Sports & Wellness Club located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Defendant is a chain of fitness clubs with 19 locations in several states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Gaddy, Esq. GADDY LAW FIRM 4420 Prospect Ave. NE Albuquerque, NM 87110 Phone: (505) 254-9090 Fax: (505) 273-7943 Email: Brian@GaddyFirm.com WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Little Suit Set for Dec. 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court overseeing the Roberta Little's suit against Wilhelmina International, Inc. has scheduled a hearing on all of the pending motions for December 4, 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. On June 6, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation. The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017. Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case. Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against Little. On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Little. Wilhelmina's reply papers in further support of its summary judgment motions were filed on October 23, 2019, and the class certification and summary judgment motions will next be fully briefed. The Court has scheduled a hearing on all of the motions for December 4, 2019. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin and Pressley Litigations are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the actions. Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion model management business. It specializes in the representation and management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other talent to various clients, including retailers, designers, advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Shanklin Suit Set for Dec. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilhelmina International, Inc. 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 Court overseeing the Shanklin Litigation has scheduled a hearing on all of the pending motions for December 4, 2019. On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and Michelle Griffin Trotter, in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except Raske) filed motions for class certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares and Trotter, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske. Wilhelmina's reply papers in further support of its summary judgment motions were filed on October 23, 2019, and the class certification and summary judgment motions will next be fully briefed. The Court has scheduled a hearing on all of the motions for December 4, 2019. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the actions. Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion model management business. It specializes in the representation and management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other talent to various clients, including retailers, designers, advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Lewis Class Action Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the defendants in the lawsuit captioned Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc. are awaiting the Court's order on their motion to dismiss the case. In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain of our current and former officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements relating to its freight billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense complaint described above. The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2019, and the defendants moved to dismiss it on July 15, 2019. The motion is fully briefed and awaiting decision. Management believes the Company has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this action. YRC Worldwide said, "We are unable to estimate the possible loss, or range of possible loss, associated with these claims at this time." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. YRC Worldwide Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of transportation services primarily in North America. The company operates in two segments, YRC Freight and Regional Transportation. The company was formerly known as Yellow Roadway Corporation and changed its name to YRC Worldwide Inc. in January 2006. YRC Worldwide Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. ZENDESK INC: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Zendesk, Inc. ("Zendesk" or the "Company") (NYSE: ZEN) securities between February 6, 2019 and October 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Zendesk investors have until December 23, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Zendesk investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On July 30, 2019, Zendesk reported net loss of $54.5 million for second quarter 2019 and disclosed that sales growth in Europe, Middle East, and Africa and Asia-Pacific regions "didn't quite live up to [the Company's] own expectations, and lagg[ed] other regions." As a result, Zendesk expected ongoing revenue growth of just 30%. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $9.56, or over 10%, to close at $83.56 per share on July 31, 2019, thereby injuring investors. Then, on October 2, 2019, the Company disclosed that a data breach impacted customers who had signed up before November 2016. On this news, Zendesk share price dropped $2.90, or nearly 4%, closing at $69.81 on October 2, 2019, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Zendesk's clients had been subject to data breaches dating back to 2016; (2) that Zendesk was experiencing slowing demand for its Software as a Service offerings, particularly in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia, due in large part to political uncertainty and China trade issues there; and (3) that as a result of the foregoing, Zendesk's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as defendants had led the market to believe during the Class Period. If you purchased Zendesk securities have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. Contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] [*] CPA Class Action Against Mortgage Servicer Moves Forward ------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that on Oct. 18, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington found that plaintiffs properly alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) that a mortgage servicer unfairly denied hundreds of mortgage modification requests due to an error in the mortgage servicer's software. Plaintiffs lost their home in a January 2012 foreclosure sale after the mortgage servicer rejected their mortgage modification application. They brought a CPA claim on behalf of each Washington member of the class and an unjust enrichment claim on their own behalf and on behalf of a nationwide class. In August 2018, the mortgage servicer allegedly disclosed that a calculation error in its mortgage loan modification underwriting software resulted in approximately 870 improper loan modification denials dating back to the financial crisis. However, the mortgage servicer knew about the error since 2015. In the order granting in part defendant's motion to dismiss and denying defendant's motion to strike the class action, the district court rejected the mortgage servicer's argument that the plaintiff's CPA claim was an impermissible attempt to enforce the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The court explained that, although the conduct is related to the mortgage servicer's HAMP participation, the plaintiffs were seeking to enforce a state cause of action rather than the terms of the HAMP agreement. The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. The court agreed with the mortgage servicer's position that the relationship between the mortgage servicer and the plaintiffs were governed by contract, and since the alleged benefits of the unjust enrichment claim were governed by contract, the plaintiffs were not able to maintain their unjust enrichment claim. Finally, while the mortgage servicer argued that the plaintiffs could not allege a Washington class sufficiently numerous to sustain a class action, the plaintiffs argued that the size of the class is unknown because the investigation remains ongoing. The court decided that the dispute indicated it was too early to determine whether the class was sufficiently numerous to sustain a class action. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Records US$23-Mil. Increase in A&E Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Financial Group, Inc.'s earnings for the third quarter of 2019 include after-tax special charges of US$23 million due to increased asbestos and environmental (A&E) reserves, according to the Company's press release included as attachment in the Company's Form 8-K filed on October 30, 2019 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "During the third quarter of 2019, AFG completed an in-depth comprehensive review of its asbestos and environmental exposures relating to the run-off operations of its P&C Group and its exposures related to former railroad and manufacturing operations and sites. This year's review resulted in non-core after-tax special charges of US$23 million (US$29 million pretax) to increase AFG's A&E reserves. "The P&C Group's asbestos reserves were increased by US$3 million (net of reinsurance) and its environmental reserves were increased by US$15 million (net of reinsurance). At September 30, 2019, the P&C Group's insurance reserves include A&E reserves of US$389 million, net of reinsurance recoverables. At September 30, 2019, the property and casualty insurance segment's three-year survival ratios were 19.9 times paid losses for asbestos reserves, 12.1 times paid losses for environmental reserves and 15.6 times paid losses for total A&E reserves. These ratios compare favorably with industry data compiled by A.M. Best as of December 31, 2018, which indicate that industry survival ratios were 7.0 for asbestos, 8.3 for environmental, and 7.3 for total A&E reserves. "In addition, the 2019 review encompassed reserves for asbestos and environmental exposures of our former railroad and manufacturing operations. As a result of the review, AFG increased its reserve for environmental exposures by US$8 million, due primarily to relatively small movements across several sites that primarily reflect changes in the scope and costs of investigation; AFG also increased its reserve for asbestos and toxic substance exposures arising out of these operations by US$3 million." A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://is.gd/ADr0L8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,701 Claims at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. is defending 3,701 asbestos-related claims 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, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of September 30, 2019 we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,775 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was US$10.3 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have approximately US$140 million of remaining coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/oLF9UM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Defends Mount Vernon Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. remains a defendant in some asbestos cases as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills, 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, "In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills. We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/oLF9UM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,710 Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., still defends itself against 7,710 asbestos-related claims 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. Albany International states, "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was defending against 7,710 claims as of September 30, 2019, only twelve claims have been filed against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and no settlement costs have been incurred since 2001. Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard reservation of rights." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/oLF9UM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $99-Mil. Non-PCC Reserves at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corning Incorporated's reserve for asbestos claims that are unrelated to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC") was US$99 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, "Corning is a defendant in certain cases alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC asbestos claims") which had been stayed pending the confirmation of the Plan. The stay was lifted on August 25, 2016. "At September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the amount of the reserve for these non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be US$99 million and US$146 million, respectively. The change in reserve reflects post-stay claim experience and a reduction in expected defense costs. The reserve balance as of September 30, 2019 represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees for the estimated life of the litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/dcVjiX ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $135MM PCC Liability at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corning Incorporated 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 total amount of remaining payments due in years 2020 through 2023 for asbestos claims under the reorganization plan of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC) is US$135 million, of which US$35 million will be paid in the second quarter of 2020 and is classified as a current liability. The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned 50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"). PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000, and the Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became effective in April 2016. "At December 31, 2016, the Company's liability under the Plan was US$290 million, which is required to be paid through a series of fixed payments that began in the second quarter of 2017. Payments of US$50 million and US$35 million were made in June 2019 and June 2018, respectively. The total amount of remaining payments due in years 2020 through 2023 is US$135 million, of which US$35 million will be paid in the second quarter of 2020 and is classified as a current liability. The remaining US$100 million is classified as a non-current liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/dcVjiX ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $100.1-Mil. Reserve at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. had total litigation reserve of US$100.1 million as of September 30, 2019, with regards to potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation, 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. Gardner Denver states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants. "Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products. "Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure, many of the companies that did engage in such activities or produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related injury. "The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the Products described above; the Company's experience that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets include a total litigation reserve of US$100.1 million and US$105.8 million as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. "The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary. The Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$102.8 million and US$103.0 million as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, which was included in "Other assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. "The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Company. "In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's policies that were subject to the lawsuit. Since then, the case has been proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the remaining insurer defendants. "On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on the first phase of that discovery and motions process ("Phase I"). Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the Company has rights under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and conditions, even though the policies were sold to the Company's former owners rather than to the Company itself. "On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as is normally required. The case is now proceeding through the discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute ("Phase II"). "A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject of the Adams County Case. "The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. There are a number of key variables and assumptions including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the 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. The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of an interim date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/GcWu5P ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,283 Claims at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is still a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 3,283 plaintiffs 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, "In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,061 of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 896 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/ajtHvX ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Accrues $5BB from 1993 to Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Owens-Illinois, Inc. 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 has accrued a total of approximately US$5.0 billion beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established in 1993 through September 30, 2019, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. The Company states, "From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company sold its insulation business unit in April 1958. The Company receives claims from individuals alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos from this product ("Asbestos Claims"). "Since receiving its first Asbestos Claim, as of September 30, 2019, the Company in the aggregate has disposed of approximately 401,100 Asbestos Claims at an average indemnity payment of approximately US$10,000 per claim. During the three months ended September 30, 2019, the Company disposed of approximately 300 Asbestos Claims. The Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per-claim basis and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. "Asbestos-related cash payments for 2018, 2017, and 2016 were US$105 million, US$110 million, and US$125 million, respectively. The Company's cash payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were approximately US$86,000, US$83,000 and US$71,000 for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. "The Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of Asbestos Claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in claims-handling agreements generally has reduced the number of claims that would otherwise have been received by the Company in the tort system. In addition, changes in jurisdictional dynamics, legislative acts, asbestos docket management and procedures, the substantive law, the co-defendant pool, and other external factors have affected lawsuit volume, claim volume, qualification rates, claim values, and related matters. Collectively, these variables generally have had the effect of increasing the Company's per-claim average indemnity payment over time. "Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately US$5.0 billion through September 30, 2019, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. The Company's estimates of its liability have been significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, changes in mortality rates, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, the significant expansion of the types of defendants that are now sued in this litigation, and the continuing changes in the extent to which these defendants participate in the resolution of cases in which the Company is also a defendant. "The Company continues to monitor trends that may affect its ultimate liability and analyze the developments and variables likely to affect the resolution of Asbestos Claims against the Company. The material components of the Company's total accrued liability are determined by the Company in connection with its annual comprehensive legal review and consist of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for Asbestos Claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability for Asbestos Claims not yet asserted against the Company; and (iii) the legal defense costs estimated to be incurred in connection with the Asbestos Claims already asserted and those Asbestos Claims the Company believes will be asserted. "The Company conducts an annual comprehensive legal review of its asbestos-related liabilities and costs in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review. As part of its annual comprehensive legal review, the Company provides historical Asbestos Claims' data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of disease incidence and mortality on future filing trends to develop information to assist the Company in estimating the total number of future Asbestos Claims likely to be asserted against the Company. The Company uses this estimate, along with an estimation of disposition costs and related legal costs, as inputs to develop its best estimate of its total probable liability. If the results of the annual comprehensive legal review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is lower (higher) than its reasonably estimable asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an appropriate charge (credit) to the Company's results of operations to increase (decrease) the accrued liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/6gK4d9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 890 Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois, Inc. had approximately 890 asbestos lawsuits 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. The Company states, "From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company sold its insulation business unit in April 1958. The Company receives claims from individuals alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos from this product ("Asbestos Claims"). Some Asbestos Claims are brought as personal injury lawsuits that typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "Predominantly, however, Asbestos Claims are presented to the Company under administrative claims-handling agreements, which the Company has in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country ("Administrative Claims"). Administrative Claims require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by the related claims-handling agreements. The criteria for Administrative Claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. Plaintiffs' counsel present, and the Company negotiates, Administrative Claims under these various agreements in differing quantities, at different times, and under a variety of conditions. "As of September 30, 2019, the Company had approximately 890 asbestos lawsuits pending. These pending lawsuits do not include an estimate of potential Administrative Claims that may be presented under a claims-handling agreement due to the uncertainties around presentation timing, quantities, or qualification rates. The Company considers Administrative Claims to be filed and disposed when they are accepted for payment." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/6gK4d9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Suits at Sept.30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation still faces lawsuits alleging personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2019. Rexnord states, "In connection with the Company's acquisition of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the Company with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations. "Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100 claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/mJvNXo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Faces Stearns PI Suits at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against multiple lawsuits relating to personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches by the Company's Stearns division, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. "In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided the Company with indemnification against certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The indemnity obligations relating to these matters are subject, together with indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in excess of US$900 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/mJvNXo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 5,000 Suits at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 5,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims against Rexnord Corporation's Zurn subsidiary as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "As of September 30, 2019, Zurn and numerous other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 5,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. "As of September 30, 2019, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately US$40.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately US$30.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The US$40.0 million was developed based on actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other liabilities within the condensed consolidated balance sheets. "Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2019, is in excess of the 10 year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all current claims are covered by insurance. "As of September 30, 2019, the Company had a recorded receivable from its insurance carriers of US$40.0 million, which corresponds to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets within the condensed consolidated balance sheets." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/mJvNXo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Subject to PI Claims in Sept ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation's Prager subsidiary continues to be the subject of claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product it manufactured, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2019. However, all these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket. Rexnord states, "...[T]he Company's Prager subsidiary is the subject of claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. However, all these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket, and the Company does not believe that they will become active in the future. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these matters. "In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided the Company with indemnification against certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The indemnity obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in excess of US$900 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/mJvNXo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 192 PI Suits at September 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. continues to face approximately 192 asbestos-related lawsuits 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, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. "As of September 30, 2019, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 192 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. "In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place settlement, that we believe will be sufficient to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. "While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/5ONgZs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that nine plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at September 30, 2019. The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants in complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana. The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants, generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. "At September 30, 2019, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure related to the complaints, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/5ONgZs ********* 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 ***