/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200417.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, April 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 78
Headlines
ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Stein Challenges Proposed Merger With Dialog
AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Suit Pending
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Williams Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICOLD REALTY: $2.5-Mil. Settlement Entered in Contreras Suit
AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Suit Over Digoxin Sales Ongoing
AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Cambridge Retirement System Class Suit
AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Suit
AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing
AMNEAL PHARMA: Rhodes Class Action Proceedings Stayed
AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval
AMNEAL PHARMA: Trial in Opana ER(R) Suit Set for March 2021
AMNEAL PHARMA: Williams Class Action Dismissed
ATLAS LAW: Settlement Class in Curtis Suit Certified
AVANGRID INC: Appeal in PNE Energy Supply Suit Ongoing
AVANGRID INC: Bid for En Banc Review in Breiding Suit Denied
AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss CMP's Customer Billing Suit Pending
AVITECTURE INC: Improperly Pays Technicians' Wages, Rimaihi Says
BANCO BRADESCO: Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Ct. Approval
BANK OF HAWAII: Settlement Accord Executed in Overdraft Fees Suit
BRONX BAR: Approval of Agreement and Release Bid in Cortes Denied
CENTERSTATE BANK: Johnson Challenges Merger With South State
CHEVRON STATIONS: Kabir FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Levey Sues Over Failure to Refund Airfare
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Stanley Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
DCM SERVICES: Zurakov Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
EASTSIDE PIZZA: Valladares Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EHEALTH INC: Patel Sues Over Drop in Market Value of Share Price
EVENTBRITE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
EVENTBRITE INC: Hearing on Demurrers Set for May 1
EVERI HOLDINGS: Jessop Suit Awaits Settlement Approval in Donahue
EVERI HOLDINGS: Rehman Suit Awaits Settlement Approval in Donahue
EVERI HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Donahue Class Suit
EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending
FGL HOLDINGS: Accord in Brokerage Insurance Suit Has Initial OK
FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification Due April 20
FIFTH THIRD: Settlement of Damages Class Wins Final Approval
GANNETT CO: Scarantino & Steiner Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
GLOBAL CONTACT: Court Certifies No Consent Class
GOTHAM PROCESS: Burks Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GREEN DOT: Continues to Defend Koffsmon Class Action
GREEN DOT: Faces Hellman Securities Class Action
GREENSKY INC: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suits in NY
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Still Faces Securities Action in Virginia
GULFPORT ENERGY: Lefort Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HAYAT PHARMACY: Hajjat Seek to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Muse Suit Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
HUSA LH: Hernandez Suit Over FLSA Violation Moved to S.D. Florida
IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2021
INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Holdings Merger Suit to Begin 2021
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Tiefenthaler Sues Over Violation of TCPA
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NC
LABORATORY CORP: Florida Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in "Davis"
LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom, Inc. Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed
LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Feckley Class Suit Over Commissions
LANXESS CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wright Alleges
LIPSEY COMMUNICATIONS: Madhat Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LOCUMS INC: Faces Katz TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Adverts
LOS ANGELES USD: Essah Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
LTF CLUB: Marsh Labor Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
LYFT INC: Rogers Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
MACY'S INC: Hartigan Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Oklahoma Pending
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Puerto Rico
MARIN J CORP: Agricultural Workers Class Certified
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Johnson Class Action in Georgia
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Suit in Delaware
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in Georgia
NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied
NURSECON AT SEA: Mitchell Wants Cancelled Convention Fees Back
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Awaits Decision on Appeal from Dismissal Order
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Costas Class Suit in Nevada
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Riche Class Suit in Delaware Ongoing
PETRO MECHANICAL: Roque Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
PLURALSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Class Action in Utah
PRESTON CHEVROLET-CADILLAC: Ohio App. Affirms CSPA Suit Dismissal
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Xia Class Suit Over Total Outage of OS
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action in Calif. Ongoing
S S D ENTERPRISES: Refuses to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, McMinn Says
SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFFS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Zayas Suit
SEVERO OZUNA: Settlement in Camilo Suit Wins Final Approval
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Garcia
SWITCH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Cai Putative Class Suit
SYNERGIES3 TEC: Overland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TANDEM DIABETES: Faces Deluna Suit Over Jan. 2020 Data Breach
TEGNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Clay Massey Suit over Ad Rates Pending
THOMAS MAINTENANCE: Thevenin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TILRAY INC: Faces Braun Class Action in Delaware
TLG FAMILY MANAGEMENT: Ruffolo Sues Over Unlawful Time Shaving
TOUGH MUDDER: McKinnon Employment Suit Removed to S.D. New York
TWILIO INC: Compliance Hearing in Flowers Case Set for May 19
TWILIO INC: Settlement in Bauman Litigation Pending
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Australia Still Ongoing
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Utley Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
UNIVERSAL GROUP: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Electricians
US ECOLOGY: Sullivan to Proceed Solely with PAGA Claims
VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Lawsuit Remains Stayed
WALMART INC: Faces Sousa Labor Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
WYNNE TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Claims
ZOGENIX INC: Final Judgment of Dismissal Filed in Lake Class Suit
ZOOM VIDEO: Johnston Sues Over Sharing of Users' Personal Info
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $208MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 124 Pending Talc Suits at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Lift Stay Filed in D/C Bankruptcy Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Records $255MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Had $3.0MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Exposure Suits at Dec. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 32 PI Suits at January 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Defends 3,465 Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 2 Suits and Claims for $30,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 61,134 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 108 Pending Cases at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 114 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Suits at Dec. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Defends Suits at January 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Faces 108 Pending PI Cases at Dec. 31
*********
ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Stein Challenges Proposed Merger With Dialog
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, NELSON CHAN, NARBEH
DERHACOBIAN, HERVE FAGES, FRANCIS LEE, KEVIN PALATNIK, and SUSAN
UTHAYAKUMAR, Case No. 1:20-cv-02900 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the other public holders of the common stock
of Adesto against its and the members of its board of directors for
their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
connection with the proposed merger between Adesto and Dialog
Semiconductor plc.
On February 20, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $12.55 in cash for each share of
Adesto stock they own.
On March 16, 2020, in order to convince Adesto shareholders to vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act, according to the
complaint. The materially incomplete and misleading preliminary
proxy violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act. On March 27, 2020, the
Board authorized the filing of a Form DEFM14A Definitive Proxy that
did not correct the materially misleading nature of the Preliminary
Proxy.
The Board has scheduled a special meeting of the Company's
shareholders on May 5, 2020, to vote on the Proposed Transaction.
While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading, the Plaintiff contends.
In particular, the Plaintiff asserts, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied on by Defendants in recommending that Adesto shareholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of
certain valuation analyses conducted by Adesto's financial advisor,
Cowen and Company, LLC, in support of its opinion that the Merger
Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.
The Plaintiff contends that it is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior
to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make
an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the
shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the
material information is disclosed to Adesto shareholders
sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or,
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is a holder of Adesto common stock.
Adesto provides application specific semiconductors and embedded
systems that provide key building blocks of Internet of Things edge
devices operating on networks worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-983-9330
Facsimile: 212-983-9331
Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Akcea Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, City of Cambridge Retirement System
v. Crooke, et al., C.A. No. 2019-0905, is pending.
On November 11, 2019, a purported Company stockholder filed the
Delaware Action in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned City of
Cambridge Retirement System v. Crooke, et al., C.A. No. 2019-0905.
The plaintiff in the Delaware Action asserts claims against (i)
current and former members of the company's board of directors; and
(ii) Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc..
The plaintiff asserts derivative claims on behalf of Akcea, which
is a nominal defendant in the Delaware Action, as well as
putatively direct claims on behalf of a purported class of our
stockholders.
The plaintiff in the Delaware action asserts that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the licensing
transaction that we and Ionis entered into regarding inotersen and
AKCEA-TTR-LRx. The plaintiff also asserts an unjust enrichment
claim against Ionis.
Akcea said, "We and the Defendants have moved to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint. We believe that the claims asserted in the
Delaware Action are without merit. This litigation could result in
substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and
attention, which could harm our business and the value of our
common stock."
Akcea Therapeutics, Inc. is a commercial stage biopharmaceutical
company developing and commercializing transformative medicines to
treat patients with serious and rare diseases. Its large and
advancing pipeline of medicines in late-stage development and
medicines on the market allows the company to capitalize on its
strengths in supporting patients, healthcare professionals and
caregivers in treating rare and serious diseases. The company is
based in Boston, Massachusetts.
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Williams Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CAMERON WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, a corporation; and DOES 1 to 50
inclusive, Case No. RIC- 2000530 (Filed Feb. 4, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 19, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00577 to the proceeding.
The complaint purports to state a cause of action against Defendant
for violation of California Labor Code.
The American Red Cross, also known as The American National Red
Cross, is a humanitarian organization that provides emergency
assistance, disaster relief, and disaster preparedness education in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cameron Williams, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 48/8-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven B. Katz, Esq.
Sayaka Karitani, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 909-7775
E-mail: ksulzer@constangy.com
skaritani@constangy.com
AMERICOLD REALTY: $2.5-Mil. Settlement Entered in Contreras Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Americold Realty Trustsaid in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has entered
into a preliminary settlement of the class action suit initiated by
Jose Contreras for $2.5 million.
On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Contreras (a former employee)
filed a putative class action against the Company in the San
Bernardino County Superior Court asserting that the Company: (1)
failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay overtime wages; (3)
failed to pay all vacation wages; (4) failed to provide meal
periods; (5) failed to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failed
to pay wages timely to terminated employees; and (7) violated
California unfair business practices.
On April 10, 2019, the Company filed an Answer and Affirmative
Defenses in response to the complaint and successfully removed the
case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. On May 2, 2019, plaintiff filed a separate
lawsuit for civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") in the San Bernardino Superior Court against
the Company, Case No. CIV-DS-1913525 based on similar factual
allegations that are asserted in the complaint.
The Company successfully obtained a dismissal of the San Bernardino
Superior Court Action. On June 18, 2019, the plaintiff amended his
complaint in the pending federal court action to add a rest period
violation claim and PAGA penalty claims based on similar
allegations that are asserted in the complaint.
Plaintiff's counsel later dismissed plaintiff's vacation wages
claim from his first amended complaint.
The Company denies the plaintiff's claims and denies that plaintiff
and the putative class members have been damaged in any respect or
in any amount as a result of any act or omission by the Company.
The Company also denies that this case is appropriate for class
treatment and further asserts, among other grounds, that this case
is unmanageable as a PAGA representative action.
The Company has entered into a preliminary settlement of the case
for $2.5 million. The settlement of the case is subject to court
approval.
Americold Realty Trust is a leading provider of cold storage
services headquartered in Atlanta, and is organized as a real
estate investment trust. The firm is focused on the ownership,
operation, development and acquisition of temperature-controlled
real estate. Americold also provides additional services including
warehouse handling and value-add logistics services to manage the
entire temperature-controlled supply chain.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Suit Over Digoxin Sales Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a
decision in the class action suit related to generic drug digoxin
is ongoing.
On April 17, 2017, lead plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former
Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Fleming v.
Impax Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 4:16-cv-06557-HSG).
Plaintiff asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about
three generic drugs. Its principal claim alleges that Impax
concealed that it colluded with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the
price of generic drug digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed
from this collusive pricing. Plaintiff also alleges that Impax
concealed from the market anticipated erosion in the price of
generic drug diclofenac and that Impax overstated the value of
budesonide, a generic drug that it acquired from Teva. On June 1,
2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion, dismissing
plaintiff's claims without prejudice and with leave to amend the
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint October 26,
2018. Impax filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on December 6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto was filed on
January 17, 2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to
dismiss was filed on February 7, 2019.
A hearing before the Court on the motion to dismiss took place on
May 2, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Court entered an order
granting Impax's motion, dismissing plaintiff’s second amended
complaint with prejudice.
On September 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from both
dismissal orders with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
By order of the Ninth Circuit dated November 26, 2019, plaintiff's
opening brief presently is due to be filed on February 14, 2020,
with Impax's answering brief due on March 16, 2020.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Cambridge Retirement System Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
defending against a class action suit entitled, Cambridge
Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.
SOM-L-001701-19.
On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against
the Company and fourteen current or former officers alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., No. SOM-L-001701-19).
Plaintiff principally alleges that the amended registration
statement and prospectus issued on May 7, 2018 in connection with
the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or
misleading, insofar as it purportedly failed to disclose that
Amneal was an active participant in an alleged antitrust conspiracy
with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix generic drug
prices, and that this secret collusion improperly bolstered
Amneal's financial results reflected in the registration statement.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class and
unspecified compensatory and/or recessionary damages.
Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation.
However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results
of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition."
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Suit
------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has
been named as a defendant in the class action suit entitled, In re
Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation.
On January 27, 2020, the Company and Amneal were named in a
putative class action complaint filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of consumers
who purchased Zantac(R) (ranitidine) and have not been diagnosed
with, but "live in constant fear of developing," cancer, alleging
that the defendants, comprising various entities alleged to have
manufactured or sold brand-name Zantac(R) or generic ranitidine,
failed to disclose and/or concealed the product’s "dangerous
propensities" in respect of the alleged presence in the product of
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or NDMA) (White, et al., v. GlaxoSmithKline
plc, et al., No. 1:19-cv-07773).
The complaint purports to state claims for violations of state
consumer protection acts, breaches of implied warranties,
negligence/gross negligence, and fraudulent concealment (and seeks
the certification of corresponding nationwide classes and
subclasses).
In addition to class certification, plaintiffs seek, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief,
including the implementation and funding of a medical monitoring
program. The complaint is one of hundreds of similar putative class
actions and personal injury/product liability lawsuits filed in
federal courts nationwide (though this is the first in which the
Company/Amneal have been named as defendants).
In November 2019, the JPML established In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA
Litigation (MDL No. 2924) for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings and, on February 6, 2020, ordered the MDL centralized
in the Southern District of Florida.
On February 24, 2020 this lawsuit was transferred to and
consolidated with MDL No. 2924.
The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any
adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In Re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation
Beginning in March 2016, numerous complaints styled as antitrust
class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect
purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual
complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the
"opt-out plaintiffs") have been filed against manufacturers of
generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and
metronidazole, including Impax.
The end-payor plaintiffs comprised Plaintiff International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters
Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade
Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500
Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City
of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here
Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company.
The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprised KPH Healthcare Services,
Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.;
César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C.
The opt-out plaintiffs comprised The Kroger Co.; Albertsons
Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and
United Healthcare Services, Inc.
On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil
actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the
generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 2724).
Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017
for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2
complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also
is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL
court on June 22, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of
glyburide-metformin and metronidazole.
Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix,
maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate
markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants'
motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to
dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in
the digoxin action.
The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor
plaintiffs' complaint and six state law claims in the indirect
reseller plaintiffs' complaint. Motions to dismiss the
glyburide-metformin and metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of
the complaints filed by certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed
February 21, 2019.
On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a
stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs’
glyburide-metformin claims against Impax.
On May 10, 2019, the Company was named in a civil lawsuit filed by
the Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers,
as well as certain of their current or former sales and marketing
executives, regarding an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and
allocate or divide customers or markets for various products,
including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride
tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets,
in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection
laws. Plaintiff States seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages and civil penalties), as
well as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
On June 4, 2019, the JPML transferred the lawsuit to the E.D. Pa.
for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On November
1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint in
their lawsuit, bringing claims on behalf of 9 additional states and
territories against several defendants; the relief sought and
allegations concerning the Company (including the products
allegedly at issue) are unchanged from the original complaint.
On July 31, 2019, the Company and Impax were served with a Praecipe
to Issue Writ of Summons and Writ of Summons filed in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by 87 health insurance
companies and managed health care providers (America's 1st Choice
of South Carolina, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al.,
No. 190702094), naming as defendants in the putative action the
same generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and individuals named in
the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit. However, to
date, no complaint has been filed or served in this action.
On December 12, 2019, the court entered an Order placing the case
in deferred status pending further developments in MDL No. 2724.
On October 11, 2019, opt-out plaintiff United Healthcare Services,
Inc. filed a second complaint, in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota (United Healthcare Services, Inc. v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., No. 0:19-cv-02696),
following on and supplementing its original action, asserting
antitrust claims against the Company and other generic
pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the
above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
On October 25, 2019, the lawsuit was transferred by the JPML to the
E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.
On October 18, 2019, opt-out plaintiff Humana, Inc. also filed a
second complaint, likewise following on supplementing its original
action to assert antitrust claims against the Company and other
generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers arising from the facts
alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit,
and similarly seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.
The lawsuit was filed in the E.D. Pa. (Humana Inc. v. Actavis
Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv 04862), and likely will be
incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.
On November 14, 2019, the Company was named in a complaint filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on
behalf of 14 counties in the state of New York, who allege to be
both direct and end-payor purchasers of generic pharmaceutical
drugs (County of Nassau, et al., v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et
al., No. 616029/2019).
The complaint asserts antitrust claims against the Company and
other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts
alleged in the State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiff Counties
seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and
equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
On December 17, 2019, defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (No.
2:19-cv-07071) and, on January 3, 2020, the case was transferred by
the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with
MDL No. 2724.
On December 11, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a
complaint filed in E.D. Pa. by Health Care Service Corp., a
customer-owned health insurer opting out of the end-payor plaintiff
class (Health Care Service Corp. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al.,
No. 2:19-cv-05819-CMR).
Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or
markets for various products (including, with respect to the
Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate
tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to Impax,
digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in violation of
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff
seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and
equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
The lawsuit likely will be incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.
On December 16, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against Impax and
against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of
assignees of claims from third-party health benefit plans, opting
out of the end-payor plaintiff class (MSP Recovery Claims, Series
LLC, et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No.
3:19-cv-01972-SRU), and alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and
allocate or divide customers or markets for various products
(including, with respect to Impax, digoxin and
lidocaine-prilocaine) in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On
January 10, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML to the E.D.
Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.
On December 19, 2019, the end-payor plaintiffs filed a new
complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class
action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint,
which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix
prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various
products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal,
bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets,
ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen sodium tablets,
oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and
warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, metronidazole,
amphetamine salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules,
cyproheptadine HCL tablets, methylphenidate tablets, and
pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.
On December 20, 2019, the indirect-reseller plaintiffs filed a new
complaint naming the Company, following on and supplementing their
putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724.
The new complaint is brought on behalf of both independent
pharmacies and hospitals, and asserts antitrust claims against the
Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (as well as
distributors of generic pharmaceuticals, including
AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc., and McKesson
Corporation) arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced
State Attorneys General lawsuit.
Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.
On December 27, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California by Molina Healthcare, Inc., a
publicly traded healthcare management organization opting out of
the end-payor plaintiff class (Molina Healthcare, Inc. v. Actavis
Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 3:19-cv-08438).
Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or
markets for various products (including, with respect to the
Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate
tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to Impax,
digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in violation of
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
On February 5, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML, to the
E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.
On February 7, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a new
complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class
action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724.
Plaintiffs' new complaint, which names as defendants the Company,
Amneal, Impax, and numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers,
alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers
or markets for various products (including, with respect to the
Company/Amneal, bethanechol chloride tablets, ranitidine HCL
tablets, naproxen sodium tablets, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets,
hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and
warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, amphetamine
salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules,
methylphenidate tablets, and pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation
of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.
Fact and document discovery in MDL No. 2724 are proceeding.
On December 26, 2019, the MDL court entered a case management order
extending by stipulation certain pretrial discovery deadlines,
including leaving open-ended the date by which, after consultation
with MDL court's appointed Special Master, the parties are to agree
upon bellwether claims or cases for, inter alia, class
certification and/or trials.
Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation.
However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results
of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition."
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Rhodes Class Action Proceedings Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that all activity in
the class action suit entitled, Rhodes, et al., v. Rhodes
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-00885, had been stayed by
order of the multi-district litigation court.
In October 2019, the Company, Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New
York, LLC, and Impax were served with a putative class action
complaint, which also names as defendants numerous manufacturers of
opioid products (and certain corporate officers thereof), filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee by several individuals who allegedly purchased
prescription opioid medication in cash and/or with an insurance
co-payment (Rhodes, et al., v. Rhodes Technologies, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:19-cv-00885).
Plaintiffs claim that they would not have purchased these
prescription opioid products had defendants not allegedly
misrepresented the products' "addiction propensities," and thereby
suffered economic loss.
Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of all
individuals who directly or indirectly purchased prescription
opioid medication from January 2008 to the present in 31 different
states, allege causes of action for violations of those states'
antitrust laws and consumer protection statutes (and unjust
enrichment), and seek, in addition to class certification,
unspecified monetary damages (including actual, statutory, and
punitive or treble damages) and equitable relief, including
declaratory judgment and restitution. Responsive pleadings are not
yet due to be filed.
On February 5, 2020, the case was transferred to the MDL. All
activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court
overseeing the case, Sergeants Benevolent Association Health &
Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et al., has entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the
case as to the settling defendants (including the Company).
In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed
against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and
numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest
Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic
versions of Forest's Namenda IR product.
The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and
state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege
in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly
purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various
states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants'
allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among
other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief,
including disgorgement and restitution.
On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims pending factual development or resolution of
claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct
purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant).
On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case
to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental,
non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled
in 2019.
The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as
well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26,
2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to
dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims.
On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that
they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019.
In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs,
subject to Court approval.
On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to
the settling defendants (including the Company).
The amount of the settlement was not material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Trial in Opana ER(R) Suit Set for March 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court in the
Opana ER(R) related class suit has entered a case schedule to which
the parties jointly stipulated, setting a trial date of March 15,
2021.
From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions
on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known
as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf
of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed
against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax.
The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and
Meijer Inc.
The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of Police,
Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons' Health Care
Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit
Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138
Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund.
The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.;
Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson’s LLC; Rite
Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class
actions transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings,
as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580). (Actions
subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were transferred by
the JPML to the N.D. Ill. to be coordinated or consolidated with
the coordinated proceedings, and the District Court likewise has
consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs' actions with the direct
purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.)
In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic
competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.
Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing.
On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
and served opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to class
certification and rebuttal expert reports were filed and served on
August 29, 2019.
On November 5, 2019, plaintiffs filed reply briefs in further
support of their motions for class certification.
On January 17, 2020, defendants filed a motion for leave to file
joint surreply briefs in response thereto; plaintiffs filed
responses on January 24, 2020. On February 5, 2020, the court
granted defendants' motion for leave, and entered a case schedule
to which the parties jointly stipulated, setting a trial date of
March 15, 2021.
Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation.
However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results
of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition."
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Williams Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suit initiated by Emielou Williams has been dismissed.
On August 3, 2017, plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the
County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business
and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California
wage and hour laws, and seeking, among other things, declaratory
judgment, restitution of allegedly unpaid wages, and disgorgement.
On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike
Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled
Impax's Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims. However, it
struck all of plaintiff’s class allegations. On March 13, 2018,
plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once again including
the same class allegations.
The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations
on April 12, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the Court again struck
plaintiff's class allegations; plaintiff has appealed this most
recent order to the California State Court of Appeal.
Plaintiff filed her opening appellate brief on February 22, 2019;
Impax's brief in response was filed on April 18, 2019; plaintiff
filed her reply brief on May 7, 2019; and Impax filed a surreply on
May 22, 2019. The appeal has now been fully submitted on the
briefs.
On November 8, 2019, the Court of Appeal entered an order agreeing
with Impax that the order from which plaintiff appealed was not
appealable, and dismissing the appeal (and awarding Impax its costs
on appeal).
On December 31, 2019, Impax agreed to settle plaintiff's individual
claims for an immaterial amount and with no admission of liability,
in exchange for a waiver of costs and an executed request for
dismissal with prejudice.
The request for dismissal was filed with the Superior Court on
January 27, 2020, and the court has now dismissed the matter.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
ATLAS LAW: Settlement Class in Curtis Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LEONARD CURTIS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. ATLAS LAW, PLLC, Case
No. 8:19-cv-01811-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mary S.
Soriven entered an order:
1. granting Curtis's motion for conditional class
certification and preliminary approval of class
Settlement;
2. preliminarily approving the Parties' settlement agreement,
3. approving, as to form and content, the Parties'
Settlement Notice to Class and Claim Form
4. appoiniting First Class, Inc., 5410 W. Roosevelt Rd., Ste
222, Chicago, IL 60644-1490, as the Class Administrator
and finds that such appointment has been agreed to by the
Parties;
5. scheduling a fairness hearing be held before this Court on
Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. at the Sam M.
Gibbons United States Court House, 801 North Florida
Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602, Courtroom 7A;
6. preliminarily certifying Settlement Class consisting of:
"all natural persons with a Florida address to whom
Defendant sent a letter based on the Template in
connection with the collection of a debt on or after July
24, 2018 through August 6, 2019";
7. appointing the Mr. Curtis as the class representative for
the Settlement Class, appointing following attorneys as
Class Counsel:
Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP,
PA 5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290
Cooper City, FL 33330
Telephone: (954) 212-2184
Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com
- and -
Elliot A. Rosenberger, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP,
PC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-
618 Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: (888) 332-7252
Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
E-mail: erosenberger@thompsonconsumerlaw.com
and,
8. directing the Defendant to deliver to the Class
Administrator a list of the names and last known addresses
of the members of the Class no later than 14 from the date
of this Order.
The Court preliminarily finds that this case meets the requirements
for class certification. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Defendant
has agreed to pay a total class settlement fund of $3,500, to be
distributed equally among those members of the class who submit
timely claims for payment. Any class member who desires to receive
a settlement payment must complete and sign the Claim Form sent
with the Class Notice, the Court adds.[CC]
AVANGRID INC: Appeal in PNE Energy Supply Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the class action
suit entitled, PNE Energy Supply LLC v. Eversource Energy and
Avangrid, Inc., is ongoing.
On August 10, 2018, PNE Energy Supply LLC, a competitive energy
supplier located in New England that purchases electricity in the
day-ahead and real time wholesale electric market, filed a civil
antitrust action, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated,
against the Company and Eversource alleging that their respective
gas subsidiaries illegally manipulated the supply of pipeline
capacity in the "secondary capacity market" in order to
artificially inflate New England natural gas and electricity
prices.
These allegations were also based on the conclusions of the
whitepaper issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
The plaintiff claims to represent entities who purchased
electricity directly in the wholesale electricity market that it
claims was targeted by the alleged anticompetitive conduct of
Eversource and the Company.
On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff inquiry and the
dismissal of the related case, "Breiding et al. v. Eversource and
Avangrid," by the same court in September.
The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on October
26, 2018 and the Company filed a reply on November 15, 2018. The
district court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on
January 18, 2019.
On April 26, 2019, the Company filed a brief in support of its
motion to dismiss, and on June 7, 2019, the district court granted
the Company's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all claims.
On July 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, on October 18, 2019,
filed a brief in support of appeal.
Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class action
lawsuit."
Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.
AVANGRID INC: Bid for En Banc Review in Breiding Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion for an en banc review
on the district court's order of dismissal in the class action suit
entitled, Breiding et al. v. Eversource and Avangrid that was
affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, has been denied.
On November 16, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
customers in New England against the Company and Eversource
alleging that certain of their respective subsidiaries that take
gas transportation service over the Algonquin Gas Transmission
(AGT), which for AVANGRID would be its indirect subsidiaries The
Southern Connecticut Gas Company (SCG) and Connecticut Natural Gas
Corporation (CNG), engaged in pipeline capacity scheduling
practices on AGT that resulted in artificially increased
electricity prices in New England.
These allegations were based on the conclusions of a whitepaper
issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental
advocacy organization, on October 10, 2017, purporting to analyze
the relationship between the New England electricity market and the
New England local gas distribution companies.
The plaintiffs assert claims under federal antitrust law, state
antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and
under the common law of unjust enrichment.
They seek damages, disgorgement, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorney fees and costs.
On February 27, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) released the results of a FERC staff inquiry into the
pipeline capacity scheduling practices on the AGT.
The inquiry arose out of the allegations made by the EDF in its
whitepaper. The FERC announced that, based on an extensive review
of public and non-public data, it had determined that the EDF study
was flawed and led to incorrect conclusions. FERC also stated that
the staff inquiry revealed no evidence of anticompetitive
withholding of natural gas pipeline capacity on the AGT and that it
would take no further action on the matter.
On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the
claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
FERC staff inquiry conclusion.
The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 25,
2018. On September 11, 2018, the District Court granted the
Company's Motion and dismissed all claims.
On January 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a brief in support of
appeal and on April 26, 2019, the Company and Eversource filed a
joint brief in opposition. On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a
reply to the opposition.
On September 18, 2019, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. The
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking en banc review on October 16,
2019. On November 15, 2019, the First Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the motion.
Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.
AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss CMP's Customer Billing Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that Central Maine Power Company
(CMP) and the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint without prejudice or to stay proceedings pending
plaintiffs' exhaustion of administrative remedies in the class
action suit related to customer billing investigation, is pending.
On August 16, 2018, an amended class action lawsuit was filed
against Central Maine Power Company (CMP) and the Company in the
Cumberland County Superior Court on behalf of all CMP customers
alleging that CMP's new billing software and metering system
improperly overcharged customers.
The plaintiff asserts this claim under the common law of unjust
enrichment, breach of contract and fraudulent and intentional
misrepresentation and seeks damages, punitive damages, attorney
fees and costs.
On September 21, 2018, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
the claims that was opposed by the plaintiffs. On November 14,
2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary and permanent
injunction enjoining CMP from sending putative class members
disconnection notices and/or disconnecting their power until this
litigation is resolved.
On February 22, 2019, the Cumberland County Superior Court ordered
that the proceedings be stayed until November 1, 2019 to allow
resolution of the Maine Public Utilities Commission's (MPUCs)
formal investigation of CMP's billing practices and denied the
plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
On July 30, 2019, Douglas Herling, chief executive officer of CMP,
and Iberdrola, S.A. were added as defendants and additional claims
alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act were added to the case. CMP and the Company
removed the case to federal court and filed a Motion to Dismiss on
September 30, 2019.
On November 22, 2019, upon agreement of the parties, CMP and the
Company withdrew its motion to dismiss without prejudice and the
plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint on or
before January 31, 2020 to allow for the conclusion of the MPUC
investigation into CMP's metering, billing, and customer
communications practices.
On January 30, 2020, the MPUC deliberated the metering, billing and
customer communications investigation. The MPUC did find that with
exception of certain localized and random errors, CMP's billing
system is working as designed and there were no systemic errors in
billing.
The decision also included an administrative process to address
unresolved customer complaints of high bills. The written order
documenting these decisions will be issued by the MPUC.
On January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint. On February 28, 2020, CMP and the Company filed a Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint Without Prejudice or
to Stay Proceedings Pending Plaintiffs' Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies.
Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class action
lawsuit."
Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.
AVITECTURE INC: Improperly Pays Technicians' Wages, Rimaihi Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarell Rimaihi, Cornelia Feenster and Timothy Scott, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. AVITECTURE,
INC., d/b/a AVITECTURE, RIGHTECH, INC., d/b/a RIGHTECH, Case No.
1:20-cv-00930 (D.D.C., April 7, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for improperly paid wages due under a public contract
and pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act.
In the District of Columbia, the prevailing applicable rate for
Journeyman Electrical Installers is over $37 per hour. In Virginia,
the prevailing applicable rate for Journeyman Electricians is over
$66 per hour. However, the Plaintiffs were only compensated at
rates of pay ranging from $19-$22 per hour, without benefits, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked as lead technicians and technicians on
federally funded construction projects in the District of Columbia
Metropolitan area.
Avitecture is an electrical audio/visual contracting company which
performs electrical construction and installation work for
governmental entities and private parties.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Marc L. Gelman, Esq.
Ryan McCarthy, Esq.
JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 351-0613
Fax: (215) 922-3524
Email: jgoodley@jslex.com
mgelman@jslex.com
rmccarthy@jslex.com
BANCO BRADESCO: Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Ct. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a judgment fully and finally approving a Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned IN RE BANCO BRADESCO S.A.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-04155 (GHW),
(S.D.N.Y.).
Lead Plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi,
on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class and defendants Banco
Bradesco S.A. (Bradesco), Luiz Carlos Trabuco Cappi, and Luiz
Carlos Angelotti, have entered into the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement.
This Court preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement, finding
that the Parties demonstrated that the Court would likely be able
to approve the Settlement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate
to the Settlement Class under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the
Settlement, this Action as a class action on behalf of a Settlement
Class defined as all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the preferred American Depositary Shares (PADS)
issued by Bradesco during the period from August 8, 2014 through
July 27, 2016, inclusive, and were injured thereby.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants (ii) the
individual Defendants' Immediate Family members (iii) any person
who was an officer or director of Bradesco during the Settlement
Class Period (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in
which a Defendant has or had a controlling interest (v) Bradesco's
employee retirement and benefits plan(s) and their participants or
beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases or otherwise
acquired PADS through such plans and (vi) the legal
representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or
assigns of any such excluded person or entity. Also excluded from
the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which
excluded themselves from the Settlement Class by submitting a
request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court, as listed on
the attached Exhibit.
Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Court fully and finally approves the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects (including,
without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the Releases
provided for therein; and the dismissal with prejudice of the
claims asserted against Defendants in the Action), and finds that
the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate
to the Settlement Class.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending,
enter judgment, and close the case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx6o5b34 from Leagle.com.
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by Alfred Louis Fatale, III - afatale@labaton.com -
Labaton & Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner - jgardner@labaton.com -
Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Andrew L. Zivitz - azivitz@ktmc.com -
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, James P. McEvilly, III -
jmcevilly@ktmc.com - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jason
Matthew Kirschberg - jason@gadowtyler.com - Gadow Tyler, PLLC,
Johnston De Forest Whitman, Jr. - jwhitman@ktmc.com - Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Margaret E. Mazzeo - mmazzeo@ktmc.com -
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard A.
Russo, Jr.- rrusso@ktmc.com - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
William Bryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim –
pkim@rosenlegal.com - The Rosen Law Firm.
Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, Plaintiff,
represented by Jonathan Gardner- jgardner@labaton.com - Labaton
Sucharow, LLP & Alfred Louis Fatale, III -afatale@labaton.com -
Labaton & Sucharow LLP.
Louis Jean, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim , The Rosen Law
Firm.
Public School Teachers Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago &
Policemens Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, Movants,
represented by Robert Mark Roseman , Spector Roseman & Kodroff,
P.C., 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103
BANK OF HAWAII: Settlement Accord Executed in Overdraft Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit related to Overdraft Fees Suit have executed a
settlement agreement subject to court approval.
On September 9, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
a Bank customer primarily alleging Bank of Hawaii's practice of
determining whether consumer deposit accounts were overdrawn based
on "available balance" (which deducts debit card transactions that
have taken place but which have not yet been posted) was not
properly applied or disclosed to customers.
On December 6, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement
subject to court approval.
The settlement provides for forgiveness of certain related and
previously charged off overdraft fees, and a payment by the Company
of $8.0 million into a class settlement fund the proceeds of which
will be used to refund class members, and to pay attorneys' fees,
administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release
of all claims asserted against the Company.
Bank of Hawaii said, "Although the Company previously established a
$2.0 million reserve relating to this claim, the reserve has been
increased to a total of $8.0 million as of December 31, 2019."
Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank
holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.
BRONX BAR: Approval of Agreement and Release Bid in Cortes Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order denying Parties Motion to Approve
Agreement and Release in the case captioned MOISES CORTES,
Plaintiff, v. THE BRONX BAR AND GRILL, LLC et al, Defendants. No.
19-CV-2819 (SN). (S.D.N.Y.)
The parties requested that the Court approve a Settlement Agreement
and Release, under which Plaintiff would dismiss his FLSA claims
with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Plaintiff Moises Cortes (Plaintiff) brings claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law.
There is a strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement
fair, as the Court is generally not in as good a position as the
parties to determine the reasonableness of an FLSA settlement.
Release of Claims Provision
In this Circuit, courts have rejected proposed agreements to settle
claims arising under the FLSA when such agreements waive
practically any possible claim against the defendants, including
unknown claims and claims that have no relationship whatsoever to
wage-and-hour issues. Although the FLSA places strict limits on an
employee's ability to waive claims for fear that employers would
otherwise coerce employees into settlement and waiver, these
concerns are not as relevant under the circumstances in this case.
First, the parties determined that $7,500.00 constitutes 100% of
Plaintiff's potential recovery on his labor claims and that the
additional payment of $3,000.00 therefore constitutes separate
consideration given in exchange for the release of any and all
non-complaint claims. Given that Plaintiff will receive a total
amount slightly greater than 100% of his potential recovery, the
broad release language triggers fewer concerns about employer
coercion and supports a finding that the settlement sum is fair and
reasonable.
Second, Plaintiff no longer works for Defendant, lessening the risk
that Plaintiff waived additional rights for fear of retaliation.
Third, the release is mutual.
For these reasons, the Court finds the Agreement's release language
acceptable.
Confidentiality Provision
The Agreement also contains a confidentiality provision requiring
Plaintiff to treat the existence and terms of the Agreement as
confidential. The Agreement also prohibits Plaintiff from
publishing the existence or terms of the Agreement, whether on
social media, on the internet, or with the press, and will not in
any way communicate he amount of the settlement.
In this Circuit, courts routinely reject bids to keep FLSA
settlements confidential. In doing, courts refer to both the
presumptive principle of public access to court documents as well
as the FLSA's purpose of ensuring widespread awareness of workers'
rights.
Here, of course, the Agreement will be filed on the public docket,
but its terms gag the Plaintiff from discussing anything about his
settlement.
The scope of the confidentiality provision in this Agreement is not
clearly limited. Plaintiff is required to treat the existence and
terms of the Agreement as confidential. This language, in addition
to specific prohibitions on publication including, for example, via
the internet or social media, may imply a total restriction on the
Plaintiff's ability to communicate the terms or existence of the
Agreement with individuals other than those explicitly excepted in
the provision, namely. The language prohibiting Plaintiff from
discussing the amount received pursuant to the Agreement does not
raise the same concerns because Plaintiff may still abide by that
limitation while effectively communicating the existence and terms
of the Agreement with others in furtherance of the FLSA's
purposes.
The Court will approve a future amended Agreement to the extent it
includes a limited confidentiality provision prohibiting Plaintiff
solely from disclosing the amount received under the Agreement
subject to any exceptions contemplated by the present Agreement but
not otherwise prohibiting Plaintiff from publishing truthful
information about or discussing the existence or other terms of the
Agreement.
The revised request to approve the proposed settlement is DENIED
without prejudice to the filing of a new motion for approval.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 25, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tpa9w85 from
Leagle.com.
Moises Cortes, on behalf of himself & Moises Cortes, on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Hans
Cooper - PCOOPER@JCPCLAW.COM - Cilenti & Cooper, PLLC.
The Bronx Bar and Grill, LLC, doing business as Mott Haven Bar &
Grill or any other business entity doing business as "Mott Haven
Bar & Grill", located at 1 Bruckner Boulevard, Bronx, New York
10454 & Rosa Garcia, individually, Defendants, represented by R.
Zachary Gelber -zgelber@gelbersantillo.com - Gelber & Santillo
PLLC.
CENTERSTATE BANK: Johnson Challenges Merger With South State
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CENTERSTATE BANK CORPORATION, ERNEST S. PINNER, CHARLES
W. MCPHERSON, JAMES H. BINGHAM, MICHAEL J. BROWN, SR., CHARLES
DENNIS CARLTON, MICHAEL F. CIFERRI, JOHN C. CORBETT, JODY JEAN
DREYER, GRIFFIN A. GREENE, JOHN H. HOLCOMB III, RICHARD MURRAY IV,
GEORGE TIERSO NUNEZ, THOMAS E. OAKLEY, G. RUFFNER PAGE, JR.,
WILLIAM KNOX POU, JR., DANIEL ROBERT RICHEY, DAVID G. SALYERS,
JOSHUA A. SNIVELY, SR., and MARK W. THOMPSON, Case No.
1:20-cv-02905 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the public holders of the common stock of CenterState against it
and the members of its board of directors for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
merger between CenterState and South State Corporation.
On January 25, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive 0.3001 shares of South State common
stock for each share of CenterState stock they own. Upon completion
of the merger, CenterState shareholders will own approximately 53%
and South State shareholders will own approximately 47% of the
combined company.
On March 16, 2019, in order to convince CenterState shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
in violation of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff alleges. The
materially incomplete and misleading S-4 violates SEC Rule 14a-9.
While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and
misleading.
In particular, the Plaintiff contends, the S-4 contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning the summary of
certain valuation analyses conducted by the Company's financial
advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. in support of its opinion
that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the
Board relied. The Plaintiff adds that it is imperative that the
material information that has been omitted from the S-4 is
disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's
shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed
Transaction.
For these reasons, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the
Defendants for violations of the Exchange Act based on Defendants'
violation of Rule 14a-9. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction unless, and until, the incomplete material information
is disclosed to CenterState shareholders sufficiently in advance of
the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is a holder of CenterState common stock.
CenterState is a financial holding company that provides a range of
consumer and commercial banking services to individuals, businesses
and industries through its national bank subsidiary, CenterState
Bank, N.A.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-983-9330
Facsimile: 212-983-9331
Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
CHEVRON STATIONS: Kabir FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SYED AHMED KABIR v. CHEVRON
STATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV05468 (Filed Feb. 11, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 29, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02603 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. The Plaintiff contends that CSI, his former
employer, failed to provide him with proper disclosures in
conjunction with the employee background check it performed when it
hired him in 2015.
Chevron produces fuel for cars. The company offers gasoline,
diesel, motor oils, fuel additives, and automotive transmission
fluids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
9440 South Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 510
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4608
Telephone: 323.857.5900
Facsimile: 310.275.6301
Email: Bkokozian@kokozianlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert D. Eassa, Esq.
Marc A. Koonin, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
Spear Tower
One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
Telephone: 415 957 3000
Facsimile: 415 957 3001
E-mail: rdeassa@duanemorris.com
makoonin@duanemorris.com
CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Levey Sues Over Failure to Refund Airfare
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Levey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONCESIONARIA VUELA COMPANÍA DE AVIACIÓN, S.A.P.I. DE
C.V., and CONTROLADORA VUELA COMPANÍA DE AVIACIÓN, S.A.B. DE
C.V., foreign corporations d/b/a "VOLARIS", Case No. 1:20-cv-02215
(N.D. Ill., April 8, 2020), seeks relief for those who booked
flights on Volaris for travel from the United States to Mexico and
whose flights were canceled by Volaris during the novel coronavirus
pandemic without refunding the amounts these passengers paid for
airfare and requiring them to pay a penalty to rebook their
travel.
According to the complaint, Volaris canceled many of its flights to
Mexico from the United States in the wake of the COVID-19 (Novel
Coronavirus) pandemic. Although the United States temporarily
closed its border with Mexico due to the pandemic, this restriction
did not apply to air travel. When Volaris decided to cancel its
flights to Mexico, without notice to its booked passengers, it
offered no refunds and continues to deny the refunds to passengers,
who seek them, despite its contract of carriage and United States
Department of Transportation rules requiring refunds and/or
required these passengers to pay a penalty to rebook their travel.
Volaris' conduct gives rise to the Plaintiff's and the class'
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unconscionability
and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased roundtrip airfare from Chicago Midway
International Airport (MDW) in Chicago, Illinois, to Bajio
International Airport (BJX) in Silao, Guanajuato, Mexico.
The Defendants, collectively referred to by their trade name as
"Volaris," are an ultra-low-cost air carrier founded in 2005, whose
stock is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol "VLRS".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
SWEETNAM LLC
53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1440
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 757-1888
Email: wms@sweetnamllc.com
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Stanley Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Stanley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONOCOPHILLIPS D/B/A CONOCOPHILLIPS, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00340 (S.D. Ill., April 8, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Defendant pays its pipeline inspectors a day rate with no
overtime compensation, even though they work many hours in excess
of forty hours per week, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Stanley was employed by ConocoPhillips as a pipeline
inspector in 2019 in Wood River, Illinois.
ConocoPhillips is a multi-billion-dollar oil and gas behemoth with
operations all over the world and in multiple states in the U.S.
ConocoPhillips is headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
DCM SERVICES: Zurakov Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Zurakov, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DCM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00570-PP (E.D.
Wis., April 7, 2020), seeks redress for debt collection practices
that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Wisconsin Consumer Act.
On January 7, 2020, DCM mailed a debt collection letter to the
Plaintiff regarding an alleged debt. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Letter contains contradictory and confusing representations about
the identity of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. Confusing
and misleading representations about the name of the creditor are
material misrepresentations because they create the potential for
fraud or double-payments. The Letter fails to unequivocally
identify the current creditor to whom the Plaintiff's alleged debt
is owed; hence, the Defendant violated the FDCPA and WCA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual, who resides in the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.
DCM is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the
mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to
others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Phone: (414) 482-8000
Fax: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bjslatky@ademilaw.com
EASTSIDE PIZZA: Valladares Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar B. Valladares, and other similarly situated individuals v.
EASTSIDE PIZZA, INC., and DAWN M. HURLBURT, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-21495-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020), is brought to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and
retaliatory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks
on or after November 2019, without being properly compensated, says
the complaint. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
regular and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his
regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in
violation of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted full-time restaurant
employee.
Eastside Pizza is an Italian and pizza restaurant located in Miami,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EHEALTH INC: Patel Sues Over Drop in Market Value of Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jigneshkumar B. Patel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. eHEALTH, INC., SCOTT N. FLANDERS, DEREK N.
YUNG, and DAVID K. FRANCIS, Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.,
April 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of
securities laws that resulted to the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired eHealth, Inc. common stock between March 19,
2018, and April 7, 2020, inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
In violation of the Exchange Act, eHealth misled investors as to
its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions, the
significant increase in member churn after eHealth adopted
Accounting Standards Codification 606 on January 1, 2018, and its
booking of multiple years of revenue at one time, according to the
complaint. This has led to inflated financial results. Based on
these representations, eHealth's stock price soared to a high of
$152.19 per share.
The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors,
the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented
and/or failed to disclose to investors: (1) its highly aggressive
accounting and modeling assumptions; (2) its skyrocketing rate of
member churn, resulting from eHealth's pursuit of low quality,
lossmaking growth; (3) its reliance on direct response television
advertising, which attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee;
and (4) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Before the markets opened on April 8, 2020, analyst Muddy Waters
Research published a report in which it wrote that "EHTH's highly
aggressive accounting masks what we believe is a significantly
unprofitable business." Muddy Waters continued that "EHTH's
persistence assumptions in its LTV2 model seem highly aggressive
when compared to reality," and that "after ASC 606 went into
effect, member churn immediately skyrocketed," and that "EHTH is
pursuing low quality, lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based on
lower churn, pre-growth cohorts."
On this news, the stock plummeted from its April 7, 2020 closing
price of $116.02 per share to an April 8, 2020 closing price of
$103.20 per share, a one day drop of $12.82 or approximately 12%.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired shares of eHealth common stock at
artificially inflated prices.
eHealth is a health insurance marketplace with a technology and
service platform that provides consumer engagement, education, and
health insurance enrollment solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Whitney E. Street, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94110
Phone: (415) 968-1852
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: wstreet@blockesq.com
- and –
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: jake@blockesq.com
EVENTBRITE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California was slated to hold a hearing on April 16 to
consider the motion to dismiss the complaint in In re Eventbrite,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-02019 (N.D. Cal.).
On March 6, the Court granted a Stipulation and Proposed Order
continuing the hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss to
April 16.
Eventbrite, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that beginning on April 15, 2019,
purported stockholders of the company filed two putative securities
class action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and three putative securities
class action complaints in the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Mateo, against the company, certain of its executives
and directors, and its underwriters for the initial public offering
(IPO). Some of these actions also name as defendants venture
capital firms that were our investors as of the IPO.
On August 22, 2019, the federal court consolidated the two pending
actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The
consolidated federal case is titled In re Eventbrite, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 5:19-cv-02019-EJD (the Federal Action).
On October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiffs in the Federal Action
filed their amended consolidated complaint. The amended complaint
generally alleges that the company misrepresented and/or omitted
material information in the company's IPO offering documents, in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
The amended complaint also challenges public statements made after
the IPO in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors who purchased the company's Class A
common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents, or between September 20, 2018 and May 1, 2019,
inclusive.
On December 11, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss
was first set for April 9.
Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a
global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows
anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enable events
ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music
festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world.
The company is based in San Francisco, California.
EVENTBRITE INC: Hearing on Demurrers Set for May 1
--------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the court in the class action
suit entitled, In re Eventbrite, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No, 19-CIV-02798, has set a hearing on May 1, 2020 to decide
anticipated demurrers.
On June 24, 2019, the state court consolidated two state actions
pending at that time. The consolidated state case is titled In re
Eventbrite, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No, 19-CIV-02798
(the State Action).
On July 24, 2019, the two plaintiffs in the State Action filed a
consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint generally
alleges that the company misrepresented and/or omitted material
information in the company's initial public offering (IPO) offering
documents, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors who purchased the company's Class A
common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents.
On August 23, 2019, defendants filed demurrers to the consolidated
complaint. A third state-court action was filed on August 23, 2019.
On September 11, 2019, that complaint was consolidated into the
operative complaint filed on July 24, 2019, and the court ordered
that the arguments in defendants' pending demurrers would apply to
that newly filed complaint.
At the hearing on defendants' demurrers on November 1, 2019, the
court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. On December 13,
2019, the court granted requests by two plaintiffs to voluntarily
dismiss their claims without prejudice.
The remaining plaintiff and two new named plaintiffs filed a first
amended consolidated complaint (FAC) on February 10, 2020.
Defendants' deadline to file their anticipated demurrers to the FAC
is March 26, 2020, and the court has set a hearing on May 1, 2020
to decide the anticipated demurrers.
Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a
global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows
anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enable events
ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music
festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world.
The company is based in San Francisco, California.
EVERI HOLDINGS: Jessop Suit Awaits Settlement Approval in Donahue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
initiated by Mat Jessop is encompassed in the settlement of the
case, Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech, et al., and will
be dismissed upon court approval of the settlement in Donahue.
Mat Jessop, et al. v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., is a putative
class action matter filed on October 15, 2018, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division.
Everi FinTech was added as a defendant on December 21, 2018. Penn
National Gaming, Inc. ("Penn National") was dismissed by the Court
with prejudice on October 28, 2019, leaving only claims against
Everi FinTech.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi FinTech has been unjustly enriched through the
charging of service fees for transactions conducted at Penn
National facilities.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against both parties, and an
award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
This matter is encompassed in the settlement of the Donahue matter,
and will be dismissed upon court approval of the settlement in
Donahue.
Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc.
(Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two
segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and
mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated
gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software.
The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
EVERI HOLDINGS: Rehman Suit Awaits Settlement Approval in Donahue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
initiated by Oneeb Rehman is encompassed in the settlement of the
case, Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech, et al., and will
be dismissed upon court approval of the settlement in Donahue.
Oneeb Rehman, et al. v. Everi FinTech and Everi Holdings, is a
putative class action matter pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Division filed on
October 16, 2018.
The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was
substituted as defendant on April 22, 2019.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi FinTech and the Company have violated certain
provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA).
Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and
costs.
This matter is encompassed in the settlement of the Donahue matter,
and will be dismissed upon court approval of the settlement in
Donahue.
Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc.
(Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two
segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and
mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated
gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software.
The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
EVERI HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Donahue Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a settlement has been
reached in the class action suit entitled, Geraldine Donahue, et
al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al.
Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech, et al. ("Donahue"), is
a putative class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in Cook
County, Illinois. The original defendant was dismissed and the
Company was substituted as defendant on April 22, 2019.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi FinTech and the Company have violated certain
provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA).
Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and
costs.
The parties have reached an agreement in principle for settlement
of this matter, which will include settlement and resolution of all
the FACTA-related matters pending against the Company and Everi
FinTech.
The settlement requires court approval, which the parties are in
the process of working to obtain.
Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc.
(Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two
segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and
mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated
gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software.
The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evolent Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the class action suit entitled, Plymouth
County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams,
Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and Steven
Wigginton, is pending.
On August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a class
action complaint against the Company, asserting claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division.
An amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2020. The case,
Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank
Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and
Steven Wigginton, alleges that the Company's executives made false
or misleading statements regarding its business with Passport.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 6, 2020. Briefing on the motion is expected to be complete
in March 2020.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), all
discovery in the case is stayed until the motion to dismiss is
decided upon by the court.
Evolent said, "Based on the Company's investigation so far, we
believe the case has little legal or factual merit. However, the
outcome of any litigation is uncertain, and at this early stage,
the Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss
or estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated with this
lawsuit."
Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC,
provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United
States. The company operates through two segments, Services and
True Health. Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.
FGL HOLDINGS: Accord in Brokerage Insurance Suit Has Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
FGL Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement in the class
action suit initiated by the Brokerage Insurance Partners, has been
preliminarily approved.
On June 30, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against FGL Insurance, FGL, and FS Holdco II Ltd in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned
Brokerage Insurance Partners v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance
Company, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, FS Holdco II Ltd, and John Doe,
No. 17-cv-1815.
The complaint alleges that FGL Insurance breached the terms of its
agency agreement with Brokerage Insurance Partners ("BIP") and
other agents by changing certain compensation terms.
The complaint asserts, among other causes of action, breach of
contract, defamation, tortious interference with contract,
negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
The complaint seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who
entered into an agreement with FGL Insurance to sell life insurance
and who sold at least one life insurance policy between January 1,
2015 and January 1, 2017.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, consequential, and
punitive damages in an amount not presently determinable, among
other forms of relief.
On September 1, 2017, FGL Insurance filed a counterclaim against
BIP and John and Jane Does 1-10, asserting, among other causes of
action, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy and violations
of RICO.
On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on
October 16, 2017, FGL Insurance filed an Amended Counterclaim
against BIP, Agent Does 1-10, and Other Person Does 1-10. The
parties also filed cross-Motions to Dismiss in Part.
On August 17, 2018, the Court in the BIP Litigation denied all
pending Motions to Dismiss filed by all parties without prejudice,
pending a decision as to whether the BIP Litigation will be
consolidated into related litigation, captioned Fidelity & Guaranty
Life Insurance Company v. Network Partners, et al., Case No.
17-cv-1508.
On August 31, 2018, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to BIP's Amended
Complaint. Also on that date, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to
Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, Filed
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A).
On October 15, 2019, BIP filed with the Court an Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Class Certification,
along with a copy of the Class Action Settlement Agreement signed
by all parties. A Fairness Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement was held on Monday,
January 13, 2020.
On January 15, 2020, the Court issued the Modified Findings and
Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement Between Plaintiff
and Defendants, Granting Conditional Certification of Settlement
Class, Directing Issuance of Notice to the Class, and Setting of
Final Approval Hearing. In preliminarily approving the Class
Settlement, the Court also approved the Settlement Schedule that
had been filed by Class Counsel on January 10, 2020.
FGL Holdings said, "Final settlement is subject to, among other
requirements, satisfactory completion of confirmatory discovery by
the Defendants and the Class Representative and final approval by
the Court after Court-approved Notice has been provided to the
absent members of the putative class."
FGL Holdings sells individual life insurance products and annuities
in the United States. The company offers deferred annuities,
including fixed indexed annuity contracts and fixed rate annuity
contracts; immediate annuities; and life insurance products. FGL
Holdings is headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.
FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification Due April 20
-----------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the class action suit entitled, In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No.
1:12-CV-00851), is currently due April 20, 2020.
On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% Annual Percentage Rate
(APR) that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was
misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to
eligible customers with checking accounts.
The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers
who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances
within 30 days.
On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against
Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and
Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third
Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v.
Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the
Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original
lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation
(Case No. 1:12-CV-00851).
On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA). On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the
immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract
claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and
stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal.
On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the
breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and
remanded for further proceedings.
The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract
claim exceed $280 million. Under the Court's scheduling order, the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently due April
20, 2020. No trial date has been set.
Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
FIFTH THIRD: Settlement of Damages Class Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court has entered an
order granting final approval for the settlement of the Plaintiff
Damages Class in the case, In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720.
In April 2006, Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated
antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R),
MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720).
The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable
and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently
also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as
discussed in Note 19 and has also entered into judgment and loss
sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named
defendants.
In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement. On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered
a final order approving the class settlement.
A number of merchants filed appeals from that approval. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held a hearing on those
appeals and on June 30, 2016, reversed the district court's
approval of the class settlement, remanding the case to the
district court for further proceedings. On March 27, 2017, the
Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of
certiorari seeking to review the Second Circuit's decision.
Pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, the
Bancorp had previously paid $46 million into a class settlement
escrow account. Approximately 8,000 merchants requested exclusion
from the class settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of
the overturned settlement agreement, approximately 25% of the funds
paid into the class settlement escrow account had been already
returned to the control of the defendants.
The remaining settlement funds paid by the Bancorp have been
maintained in the escrow account. More than 500 of the merchants
who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal
lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants
alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual federal
lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.
While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the
individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to
indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing
agreements. On September 17, 2018, the defendants in the
consolidated class action signed a second settlement agreement (the
"Amended Settlement Agreement") resolving the claims seeking
monetary damages by the proposed plaintiffs' class (the "Plaintiff
Damages Class") and superseding the original settlement agreement
entered into in October 2012.
The Amended Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, a
release from participating class members for liability for claims
that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement
Agreement becomes final. The Amended Settlement Agreement provided
for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24
billion, composed of approximately $5.34 billion held in escrow
plus an additional $900 million in new funds.
However, the Settlement Agreement also provided that if between 15%
and 25% of class members (by payment volume) opted out of the
class, up to $700 million of the additional settlement funds would
be returned to the defendants.
It has now been determined that more than 25% of the class members
have elected to opt out of the Amended Settlement Agreement, and,
therefore, $700 million of the additional $900 million has been
returned to the defendants. The Bancorp's allocated share of the
settlement is within existing reserves, including funds maintained
in escrow.
On December 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting final
approval for the settlement. The settlement does not resolve the
claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs' class seeking
injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of
the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the
future decide to pursue, private lawsuits.
Fifth Third said, "The ultimate outcome in this matter, including
the timing of resolution, therefore remains uncertain."
Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
GANNETT CO: Scarantino & Steiner Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suits entitled,
Scarantino v. Gannett Co. Inc., et al. and Steiner v. Gannett Co.
Inc., et al., have been voluntarily dismissed.
On August 5, 2019, Gannett's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with New Media.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Gannett's
stockholders will receive $6.25 in cash and 0.5427 of a share of
New Media stock for each share of Gannett common stock they own. On
August 29, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.
Following the August 5, 2019 announcement of the company's pending
acquisition of Legacy Gannett, a total of six lawsuits were filed
in various jurisdictions: Stein v. Gannett Co. Inc, et al., filed
on September 11, 2019 (D. Del.), Scarantino v. Gannett Co. Inc., et
al., filed on September 16, 2019 (D. Del.), Humbert v. Gannett Co.
Inc., et al., filed on September 30, 2019 (S.D.N.Y.), Steiner v.
Gannett Co. Inc., et al., filed on October 2, 2019 (D. Del.),
Litwin v. Gannett Co. Inc., et al., filed on October 17, 2019
(S.D.N.Y.), and Johnson v. Gannett Co., Inc., et al., filed on
October 23, 2019 (D. Del.).
The plaintiffs in each action allege, among other things, the
company and individual defendants violated Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by providing inadequate
disclosure regarding the proposed acquisition either in the
registration statement on Form S-4 filed by New Media with the SEC
or in the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by the
company with the SEC.
The plaintiffs variously sought, among other things, to enjoin or
rescind the acquisition, an award of damages in the event the
acquisition is consummated, and an award of costs and attorney's
fees; plaintiffs in Scarantino and Steiner also seek class action
certification.
All of the lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed.
Gannett Co. Inc., is a leading international, multi-platform news
and information company delivering high-quality, trusted content
where and when consumers want to engage with it on virtually any
device or platform. In addition, the Company provides a wide
variety of online marketing, digital advertising,
software-as-a-service, and web presence solutions to small and
medium sized businesses through its wholly-owned subsidiary
ReachLocal. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.
GLOBAL CONTACT: Court Certifies No Consent Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LAP DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. GLOBAL CONTACT - INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING
CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-06317-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb
entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and for leave to take discovery prior to entry of final
judgment;
2. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed "No
Consent Class," defined as:
"all persons and entities who (i) in the four years
preceding the filing of this action, (ii) received a
telephone facsimile advertisement, (iii) sent by, or on
behalf of, Global Contact, (iv) for whom Global Contact
did not have a record of prior express consent to send the
facsimile advertisements at the time they were sent," with
the exclusions outlined in the Plaintiff's motion";
3. appointing Lap Distributors Inc. as Class Representative
and appoiniting Adam T. Savett and Savett Law Offices LLC
as Class Counsel;
4. permitting the Plaintiff to leave to take discovery for
the purposes of identifying members of the class and
determining potential damages prior to the entry of final
judgment; and
5. directing the Plaintiff to submit a motion for final
certification, or a status report regarding its discovery
efforts, within 90 days of this Order.
Global Contact is an import / export management company.[CC]
GOTHAM PROCESS: Burks Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JACKIE BURKS; BRUNILDA PAGAN
CRUZ; VENUS CUADRADO; and RHONDA DRYE, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. GOTHAM PROCESS, INC.;
MULLOOLY, JEFFERY, ROONEY & FLYNN, LLP; BASSEM ELASHRAFI; and CARL
BOUTON, Case No. 20 Civ. 1001 (RPK) (SMG) (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying a proposed class;
2. appointing Jackie Burks, Brunilda Pagan Cruz, Venus
Cuadrado, and Rhonda Drye as the class representatives;
and
3. appointing NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP (NYLAG) as
class counsel.
New York-based Gotham is in the chewing and smoking tobacco and
snuff industry.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica Ranucci, Esq.
Julia Russell, Esq.
Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
Shanna Tallarico, Esq.
NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
7 Hanover Square
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 613-5000
GREEN DOT: Continues to Defend Koffsmon Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp.,
et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E.
On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v.
Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, against the company and two of its officers.
The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding the
company's business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made
statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to
disclose details regarding the company's customer acquisition
strategy and its impact on the company's financial performance.
The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and
seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs.
Green Dot said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
We are unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation would have a material impact on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows."
Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit
cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It
is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its
GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena,
California.
GREEN DOT: Faces Hellman Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is defending
against a shareholder derivative suit and securities class action
entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al, No. 20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC.
On February 18, 2020, a shareholder derivative suit and securities
class action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al, No.
20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC was filed in United States District Court for
the Central District of California, against the company and certain
of its officers and directors.
The suit avers purported breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis of the same wrongdoing
alleged in the Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No.
19-cv-10701-DDP-E.
The suit does not define the purported class allegedly damaged.
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in these
matters.
Green Dot said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
We are unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation would have a material impact on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows."
Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit
cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It
is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its
GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena,
California.
GREENSKY INC: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
GreenSky, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
class action suits related to its initial public offering.
The Company and certain of its officers and directors, together
with certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
(IPO), were named in six putative class actions filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, all of which actions have
been consolidated (In Re GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Consolidated Action), Index No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (the
"State Case")), and in two putative class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
both of which actions also have been consolidated (In Re GreenSky,
Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated Action), Case No.
1:2018-cv-11071-PAE (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Federal Case" and, together
with the State Case, the "Consolidated Cases")).
The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases generally assert on behalf
of certain purchasers in the Company's IPO claims under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company and its officers and directors named in the
Consolidated Cases intend to defend themselves vigorously in all
respects in regard thereto.
Under certain circumstances, the Company may be obligated to
indemnify some or all of the other defendants in the Consolidated
Cases.
The Company is unable to estimate the amount of reasonably possible
losses it may incur with respect to the Consolidated Cases.
GreenSky said, "Moreover, because the Company has not determined
that the likelihood of loss is probable, the Company has not
recorded any liability as of December 31, 2019 with respect to
either the Federal Case or the State Case."
GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale
financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks.
It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the
full transaction lifecycle, including credit application,
underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document
distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The
company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Still Faces Securities Action in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
GTT Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit (Case No. 1:19-cv-00982), pending
before the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
On July 30, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Case No. 1:19-cv-00982) on behalf of certain GTT
stockholders.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in connection with disclosures relating
to GTT's acquisition and integration of Interoute Communications
Holdings S.A.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages. The Company believes that
the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend
against them vigorously.
GTT Communications said, "The lawsuit is in the early stages and,
at this time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or
whether the outcome will be material to the Company."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
GTT Communications, Inc. provides cloud networking services to
multinational enterprises, carriers, and government customers in
the United States, Europe, and internationally. The Company was
formerly known as Global Telecom & Technology, Inc. and changed its
name to GTT Communications, Inc. in January 2014. GTT
Communications, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
McLean, Virginia.
GULFPORT ENERGY: Lefort Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryon Lefort, individually and on behalf of all other members of
the general public similarly situated v. GULFPORT ENERGY
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 8,
2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant
in excess of 40 hours each week. However, the workers never
received overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required
by the FLSA and the Ohio Acts, the Defendant improperly classified
the Plaintiff as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate
with no overtime compensation.
Plaintiff Bryon Lefort worked for the Defendant as a "Lease
Operator," also known as a well tender, from September 2014 to
February 2020.
The Defendants operate and manage approximately 20 to "31 health
care facilities in Ohio and Kentucky with each facility managed by
an on-site team".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
HAYAT PHARMACY: Hajjat Seek to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as OMAR HAJJAT v. HAYAT
PHARMACY, LLC and HASHIM ZAIBAK, Case No. 19-cv-01857-LA (E.D.
Wisc., Filed Dec. 18, 2019), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an
order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
current and former "Delivery Drivers" who worked for
the Defendants and were compensated as independent
contractors from December 18, 2016 to the present;
2. directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff's
counsel within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a
list containing the names, the last known addresses;
phone numbers; and e-mail addresses, for putative class
members;
3. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send notice to all
individuals whose names appear on the list produced by
the Defendants' counsel by first-class mail, text
message, and e-mail;
4. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
produced by Defendants' counsel with 45 days from the
date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent
to Become Opt-In Plaintiff; and
5. permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to send a reminder
notice half-way through the notice period.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' Delivery Drivers,
including himself, were/are not paid proper overtime compensation
due to them as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act for all
hours worked. While the Defendants deny that the payment practices
were in violation of the FLSA, the Defendants do not oppose
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action.
The Defendants are a retail establishment that sells pharmaceutical
drugs and sundries, and operate multiple locations throughout
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (313) 251-1399
E-mail: mhanna@forthepeople.com
HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Muse Suit Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUANITA MUSE, individually, and on behalf of other
similarly situated consumers v. HOLLOWAY CREDIT SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02499-CMR (E.D. Pa., Filed June 7, 2019), the
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:
"all consumers with a Pennsylvania address for which
Defendant sent a collection letter during a period beginning
one year prior to the filing of this initial action and
ending 21 days after the service of the initial complaint
filed in this action."
This action arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act in its attempt to collect a debt from the
Plaintiff.
HCS is a third-party collection agency based in Alabama.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Nicholas Linker, Esq.
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad St. Suite 203C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
nl@zemellawllc.com
HUSA LH: Hernandez Suit Over FLSA Violation Moved to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ENID HERNANDEZ, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. HUSA LH JF,
LLC, a foreign limited liability corporation registered in Florida
and d/b/a LIFE HOUSE LITTLE HAVANA, and HANK MORRIS, an individual,
and GARRETT SOLOMON, an individual, Case 2020-000367-CC-01 (Filed
Feb. 7, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and
for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on March 19, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-21204-XXXX to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claim against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants are engaged in hotel operation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa Kuhlman Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300-71st Street, South 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
E-mail: lkuhlman.jhzidellpa@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mary Ruth Houston, Esq.
Jaclyn S. Clark, Esq.
SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801-5403
Telephone: (407) 423-3200
Facsimile: (407) 425-8316
E-mail: mhouston@shutts.com
mljohnson@shutts.com
jclark@shutts.com
mljohnson@shutts.com
IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that a trial date has been set for
February 1, 2021, in the consolidated class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.
On August 7, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company, its chief
executive officer and chief operating officer.
Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserted claims that the company's quarterly statement filed on
Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2018 and a concurrent press
release made false or misleading statements about the company's
business prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought
monetary damages, costs and expenses.
On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this
complaint.
On August 27, 2018, a second-class action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief
financial officer.
Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserts claims that the company made false or misleading statements
in the company's financial statements, press releases and
conference calls during the purported class period in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary
damages, costs and expenses.
On October 2, 2018, a third-class action complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief
financial officer.
Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge
and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including
February 15, 2018, asserts claims that the company made false or
misleading statements about customer demand for the company's
products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and
conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and
expenses.
On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge
actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff.
On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from
July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or
misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of
the company's products and platform in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act.
On March 19, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion.
The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against our President
and chief operating officer, dismissed product capability-related
allegations against our former chief financial officer, and
dismissed allegations that defendants made false or misleading
statements concerning increasing demand prior to the first quarter
of 2017.
The court denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants.
A trial date has been set for February 1, 2021.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.
INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Holdings Merger Suit to Begin 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court has
amended the scheduling order to now provide that the case related
to the acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc., is ready for trial on
January 11, 2021.
Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of
BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH,
that was completed on April 15, 2014.
Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford
Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had
deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased
certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit
against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in
a case styled Peggy Roif Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et
al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-02384-N-BG.
The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeks to
recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant
banks.
On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted.
The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserted previously
unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation
in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that
the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of
certain BOH officers.
The plaintiffs seek recovery from Independent Bank and other
defendants for their losses. The case was inactive due to a
court-ordered discovery stay issued March 2, 2015 pending the
Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for class certification and
designation of class representatives and counsel.
On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court lifted the previously
ordered discovery stay. On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a
scheduling order providing that the case be ready for trial on
January 27, 2020. However, due to agreed upon extensions of
discovery on July 25, 2019, the Court amended the scheduling order
to now provide that the case be ready for trial on January 11,
2021.
The Company has experienced an increase in legal fees associated
with the defense of this claim and anticipates further increases in
legal fees as the case proceeds to trial.
Independent Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made
in the Second Amended Complaint. The insurance carriers have
initially indicated that the claims are not covered by the policies
or that a "loss" has not yet occurred.
Independent Bank pursued insurance coverage as well as
reimbursement of defense costs through the initiation of litigation
and other means.
On November 6, 2018, the Company settled claims under its Financial
Institutions Select Policy pursuant to which the Company received
payment of an amount which is not material to the operations of the
Company. The Company did not settle any claims under its Financial
Institution Bond Policy.
Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are
without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.
Independent Bank said, "This is complex litigation involving a
number of procedural matters and issues. As such, Independent Bank
is unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given
the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or
potential costs or damages arising from, this case."
Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as a national commercial
bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking services.
Independent Bank provides personal checking accounts, loans, debit
and credit cards, mobile banking, and investment services.
Independent Bank Group serves customers in the State of Texas. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Tiefenthaler Sues Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Tiefenthaler, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10689 (D. Mass., April 8, 2020), arises from a campaign by
the Defendant to market its services through the use of automated
telemarketing calls, in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Defendant sent multiple calls to residential telephone numbers
that are registered on the National Do Not Call List, which is a
separate and additional violation of the TCPA. The recipients of
the Defendant's illegal calls, which include the Plaintiff and the
proposed classes, are entitled to damages under the TCPA, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Hans Tiefenthaler is an individual citizen of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
InterContinental Hotels Group, LLC is a foreign limited liability
company with a principal place of business in Atlanta,
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (508) 221-1510
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NC
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the company continues to defend consolidated Bouffard and
Anderson class action suit.
On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.
The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices
unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with
private and public health insurers in violation of various state
consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of
implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was
granted in March 2018 without prejudice.
On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.
The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar
relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts
regarding state consumer protection laws.
On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions.
On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations.
On August 16, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and
denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Florida Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in "Davis"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the Florida Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction of the
class action suit entitled, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation
of America, et al.
On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.
The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were
collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses.
In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida
Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Court of
Appeal reversed the Circuit Court's dismissal, but certified a
controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court.
On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted
jurisdiction of the lawsuit. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom, Inc. Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the class action suit entitled, In re Sequenom, Inc.
Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, remains
stayed.
Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom Inc. (Sequenom)
between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative
class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom
stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02101-WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California challenging the acquisition
transaction.
The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its
board of directors (the Individual Defendants).
The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp.
(Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants.
The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information.
In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade
action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom
shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining the merger.
On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions.
On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for
all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above
under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead
Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from
the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated
action.
On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two
separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as
the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead
counsel.
The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The Plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 24,
2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which remains
pending.
On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian. On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme
Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently
granted.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Feckley Class Suit Over Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al.
On December 20, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange.
The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to
properly pay commissions to employees under a sales incentive
compensation plan upon their termination of employment.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, punitive
damages, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
On January 22, 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LANXESS CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wright Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chester Wright, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. LANXESS CORPORATION, Case No.
4:20-cv-00388-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 8, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the others proper overtime compensation for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week while
working for the Defendant. The Defendant paid an improper overtime
rate because the Defendant failed to include the value of the
bonuses that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiffs when
calculating their overtime rate, says the complaint. Therefore, the
Plaintiff asserts, the Defendant violated the FLSA by not including
all forms of compensation, such as bonuses, in the regular rate
when calculating the Plaintiff's overtime pay.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a fabrication cutter in
the Defendant's rubber production plant.
The Defendant is a specialty chemicals company that conducts
business within the State of Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tess Bradford, Esq.
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: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
LIPSEY COMMUNICATIONS: Madhat Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Madhat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LIPSEY COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C. d/b/a CONNECTIVITY
SOURCE, Case No. 5:20-cv-00764-SL (N.D. Ohio, April 8, 2020), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Ohio
wage and hour laws for unpaid overtime wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendant does not pay the
Plaintiff and others for all of their hours worked, including at
overtime rates where necessary, as the law requires. The Plaintiff
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. Much of this overtime
work is off-the-clock.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who worked as an hourly-paid Retail
Assistant Manager, and the similarly situated employees are not
credited and therefore not compensated for off-the-clock work
overtime, says the complaint.
Lipsey Communications L.L.C., doing business as Connectivity
Source, "is a Sprint Authorized Retailer with 319 stores in
Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Colorado, Wyoming, Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania and Texas."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Booker, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: (216) 589-9280
Facsimile: (888) 411-0038
Email: jbooker@pwcklegal.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Michael Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
sgordon@schneiderwallace.com
LOCUMS INC: Faces Katz TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Adverts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Katz, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Juva Skin and Laser Center, a New
York professional corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. LOCUMS
INC., a Georgia corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-02899 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 8, 2020), challenges the Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited advertisements via facsimile, in violation the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005.
According to the complaint, on October 8, 2019, the Defendant sent
the Plaintiff an unsolicited fax advertisement in violation of the
TCPA. The Defendant's unsolicited faxes have damaged the Plaintiff
and the class in that a junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax
machine, paper, and ink toner.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class, which were sent the Fax and
other unsolicited fax advertisements that were sent without prior
express invitation or permission and without compliant opt-out
language (to the extent the affirmative defense of "established
business relationship" is alleged). The Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages for each violation of the TCPA and injunctive relief.
The Plaintiff is a New York professional corporation with its
principal place of business within this judicial district.
The Defendant is a for-profit corporation that is in the staffing
and recruiting industry and provides staffing of locum tenens
providers to healthcare facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
50 Main Street, Suite 1000
White Plains, NY 10606
Phone: (914) 358-5345
Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com
- and -
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: 847-368-1500
Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
LOS ANGELES USD: Essah Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BEATRICE ESSAH v. GOVERNING
BOARD OF THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEVEN ZIMMER; MONICA GARCIA; DR. GEORGE
J. MCKENNA III; MONICA RATLIFF; DR. REF RODRIGUEZ; SCOTT M.
SCHMERELSON; DR. RICHARD A. VLADOVIC; JOHN DEASY; DAVID HOLMQUIST;
JUSTO A VILA; ANDRES CHAIT; FREDDY ORTIZ; MICHAEL HARRINGTON, and
DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC658459 (Filed April 19,
2017), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on March 19, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02628 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants over failure to
accommodate disability; Bane Act violation; and declaratory and
injunctive relief.
Ms. Essah is acting on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated permanent certificated LAUSD employees.
LAUSD is the largest (in terms of number of students) public school
system in the U.S. state of California and the 2nd largest public
school district in the United States.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David V. Greco, Esq.
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
333 S. Beaudry Avenue, 20th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213 241 7600
Facsimile: 213 241 3308
LTF CLUB: Marsh Labor Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND MARSH, IV, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Life Time Fitness, Receipt No. 0101-8162543
(Filed Feb. 18, 2020), was removed from the Massachusetts Superior
Court, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on March 19, 2020.
The Plaintiff worked as a personal trainer and group fitness
instructor for LTF. He alleges that he was paid on both a
commission and piece-rate basis, but that he did not receive
separate overtime compensation for hours worked on Sunday,
holidays, or in excess of 40 hours a week in violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage
Law.
LTF is a Delaware limited liability company that operates a
national chain of fitness centers.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert M. Shaw, Esq.
David J. Santeusanio, Esq.
Andrew E. Silvia, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
10 St. James Avenue
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: 617-523-2700
Facsimile: 617-523-6850
E-mail: robert.shaw@hklaw.com
david.santeusanio@hklaw.com
andrew.silvia@hklaw.com
LYFT INC: Rogers Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ROGERS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. LYFT, INC., Case No.
CGC-20-583685 (Filed March 12, 2020), was removed from the
California Superior Court, San Francisco County, to the U.S.
District Court Northern District of California on March 19, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01938 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages based on Lyft's alleged
failure to offer its drivers paid sick days as required by
California law.
Lyft is an American ridesharing company based in San Francisco,
California, and operating in 644 cities in the United States and
cities in Canada.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachael E. Meny, Esq.
R. James Slaughter, Esq.
Eugene M. Paige, Esq.
Brook Dooley, Esq.
Ian Kanig, Esq.
Jason George, Esq.
KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: 415 391 5400
Facsimile: 415 397 7188
E-mail: rmeny@keker.com
rslaughter@keker.com
epaige@keker.com
bdooley@keker.com
ikanig@keker.com
jgeorge@keker.com
MACY'S INC: Hartigan Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HARTIGAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MACY'S, INC., Case
No. Case No. 2019-CV-03718-BLS1 (Filed Nov. 26, 2019), was removed
from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 19,
2020.
The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-10551-PBS to the proceedings.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated M.G.L. c. 214,
section 1B, for breaching a duty of care owed to its card holders
by failing to prevent the criminal acts of an unknown third party.
Macy's is an American department store chain founded in 1858 by
Rowland Hussey Macy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Relethford, Esq.
Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI PC
2 Salem Green, Suite 2
Salem, MA 01970
E-mail: drelethford@forrestlamothe.com
mforrest@forrestlamothe.com
rmazow@forrestlamothe.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brenda R. Sharton, Esq.
David S. Kantrowitz, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: 617.570.1000
Facsimile: 617.523.1231
E-mail: bsharton@goodwinlaw.com
dkantrowitz@goodwinlaw.com
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Oklahoma Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In re
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending.
In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three
class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma. On
September 13, 2019, the court consolidated the three lawsuits under
the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation.
On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint against Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Arty Straehla, and
Mark Layton.
Pursuant to their first amended complaint, the plaintiffs brought a
consolidated putative federal securities class action on behalf of
all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Mammoth Energy
Services, Inc. common stock between October 19, 2017, and June 5,
2019, inclusive.
On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint.
Mammoth Energy said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims
are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. However,
at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of
this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows."
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Puerto Rico
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in Puerto Rico initiated by
Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.
On June 19, 2018, Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico styled Wendco of
Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant Inc.; Restaurant Operators
Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own behalf and in representation
of all businesses that conduct business in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions,
LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused power outages in
Puerto Rico while performing restoration work on Puerto Rico's
electrical network following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017,
thereby interrupting commercial activities and causing economic
loss.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.
Mammoth Energy said, "However, at this time, the Company is not
able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have
a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MARIN J CORP: Agricultural Workers Class Certified
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GUSTAVO CORTEZ-ROMERO, et al.
v. MARIN J CORP. and JORGE J. MARIN, Case No. 2:20-cv-14058-RLR
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon Judge Robin L. Rosenberg has entered an
order:
1. conditionally certifying a collective action on behalf of
a class of:
"all H-2A temporary agricultural workers employed by
Defendants Marin J Corp and/or Jorge J. Marin during the
2018 Missouri watermelon harvest";
2. approving a proposed notice of right to opt-in to lawsuit
for distribution to the class members;
3. directing the Plaintiffs to distribute the notice to class
members, both by mail (where feasible) and through other
media deemed likely to reach the class members, including,
but not limited to, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter
and WhatsApp;
4. directing Defendants, by no later than April 15, 2020, to
provide to Plaintiffs' counsel the complete names and
permanent addresses of all H-2A temporary agricultural
workers employed by Defendants during the 2018 Missouri
watermelon harvest;
5. directing the Defendants to file a notice with the Court
informing it of the date on which this information was
provided to counsel for the Plaintiffs; and
6. directing the Plaintiffs to have until June 15, 2020, to
distribute the notice of the members of the putative
class. Class members wishing to opt in to this action
shall do so by June 30, 2020.
The Court finds that it is likely that there are additional H-2A
workers who were employed by Defendants during the 2018 Missouri
watermelon harvest who desire to opt in to this action. The Court
further finds that the members of the proposed class, i.e., H-2A
workers employed by Defendants during the 2018 Missouri watermelon
harvest, are similarly situated to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
and the class members were employed under the same employment
contracts and worked in the same geographic area during a single,
three-month watermelon harvest. The Court added, that the
Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class were subjected to
the same policies and practices by the Defendants that allegedly
violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standrds Act.
Marin is doing business in the agriculture industry.[CC]
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Johnson Class Action in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Jarrod Johnson.
In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of
Gadsden, Alabama (the "Gadsden Water Board") filed an individual
complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against
certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing
specific Perfluorinated Compounds ("PFCs"), including the Company.
In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre,
Alabama (the "Centre Water Board") filed a similar complaint in the
Circuit Court of Cherokee County, Alabama. The Gadsden Water Board
and the Centre Water Board both seek monetary damages and
injunctive relief claiming that their water supplies contain
excessive amounts of PFCs. Certain defendants, including the
Company, filed dispositive motions in each case arguing that the
Alabama state courts lack personal jurisdiction over them. These
motions were denied.
In June and September 2018, certain defendants, including the
Company, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus
directing each lower court to enter an order granting the
defendants' dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds.
The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20,
2019. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an
Application for Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the
Court to reconsider its December 2019 decision.
In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia ("Rome") filed a
complaint in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is
similar to the Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board
complaints, again seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
related to PFCs.
Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to
represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and
Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department
and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of
alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for
the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their
drinking water. In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the
class action to federal court.
The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to
defend them vigorously.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative securities class action suit
filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.
The Company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware on January 30, 2020.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock in Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between
April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019.
The Company believes the claims are frivolous and intends to defend
them vigorously.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
defending against a putative shareholder class action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The Company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on January 3, 2020.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making materially false and misleading statements and that the
officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between April 28, 2017 and
July 25, 2019.
The Company believes the claims are frivolous and intends to defend
them vigorously.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.
NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied
---------------------------------------------------
Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has
been denied.
On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff
received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Among other relief, the complaint seeks statutory and other
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs.
On June 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was
denied.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known
as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc.
in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
San Carlos, California.
NURSECON AT SEA: Mitchell Wants Cancelled Convention Fees Back
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NURSECON AT SEA, LLC and ROYAL CARIBBEAN
INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 1:20-cv-21503-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 8,
2020), is brought for injunctive, declaratory, and equitable
relief, and for any other available remedies resulting from the
Defendants' illegal, unfair, or deceptive conduct related to
retaining the costs of the cruise and convention fees paid by the
Plaintiffs and the other Class members.
The Defendants are attempting to use the Coronavirus Disease 2019
("COVID-19") pandemic as a profiteering vessel to steal money from
nurses, the very people, who deserve our support now more than
ever, the Plaintiff alleges. NurseCon is conning nurses out of
their deposits for a cruise that is cancelled due to COVID-19. The
founder of NurseCon, "Nurse Blake" an on-line personality, has
captained the plot to steal the cruise fee ($2,578.00 per person)
from the nurses (1500 nurses). What makes matters even worse in
this nightmarish time is that "Nurse Blake" a self-proclaimed
comedian thinks this is funny, the Plaintiff asserts.
The class action is brought on behalf of all people, who paid the
cost of the "Ultimate Nursing Conference", designed and managed by
Defendant NurseCon at Sea, LLC and hosted by Royal Caribbean
International. The Plaintiff contends that these people lost the
benefits of the costs and the services for which they had paid, for
a specific event to take place on the proposed and scheduled dates,
based upon the world-wide COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants have
responded to the pandemic and the resulting cancellation of its
event by retaining the unearned costs and fees, implementing a
policy, whereby it refuses to grant any refunds to its
participants.
Despite the cancellation, the Defendants have not offered refunds
to the Plaintiff or other nurses for the costs associated with the
cancelled convention, says the complaint. The Defendants are, in
essence, profiting from this pandemic. The decision to cancel or
reschedule the event was a responsible decision to make, but it is
unfair and unlawful for Defendants to retain and withhold unearned
fees and costs, passing the losses on to the consumers and their
families.
Ms. Mitchell is a nurse, who paid for an event called NurseCon at
Sea 2020.
NurseCon at Sea is designed by Nurse Blake "for nurses and nursing
students to learn, share, interact, and party."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
4030 Henderson Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33629
Phone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Awaits Decision on Appeal from Dismissal Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Company is
awaiting a decision on a class action appeal.
On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C.
Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-08983-NRB.
On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors,
Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth
was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB.
Thereafter, the Court considered a series of applications by
various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated the
two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff.
Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the Court, lead plaintiff
Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018.
The Securities Class Action purports to be a class action brought
on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities
between May 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017. The Securities Class
Action alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, by making materially false and/or
misleading statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
including the financial and operating results of one of the
Company's operators, the ability of such operator to make timely
rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the Company's
leases and the uncollectibility of certain receivables.
The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest,
fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.
The Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2018. On March 25, 2019, the
Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against
all defendants.
Plaintiffs have appealed the order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed, and
the Court heard oral argument on November 13, 2019. The Company is
awaiting a decision on the appeal.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Costas Class Suit in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Mac Costas.
On June 11, 2018, a putative class action was filed by Mac Costas
on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the
Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018
was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, which was subsequently amended by a consolidated
complaint filed by lead plaintiff Phoenix Insurance in May 13,
2019.
The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.
The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs for each of the
quarters in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 contained
material misstatements or omissions, among other things, with
respect to the Company's tax provisions and the effectiveness of
its internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a
result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the plaintiffs
suffered damages.
On December 6, 2019 the Company's motion to dismiss was denied by
the court.
The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and
intends to defend itself vigorously.
Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia,
Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally.
The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product,
and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is
based in Reno, Nevada.
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Riche Class Suit in Delaware Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Riche v. Pappas, et al.,
Case No. 2018-0177.
Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S.
Geothermal Inc. (USG), a number of putative shareholder class
action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG
shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG
and the individual members of the USG board of directors.
All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in
Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed.
The single remaining class action complaint is a purported class
action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, entitled Riche v.
Pappas, et al., Case No. 2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018).
An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a
confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff.
The amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing
damages.
The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and
intends to defend itself vigorously.
Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia,
Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally.
The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product,
and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is
based in Reno, Nevada.
PETRO MECHANICAL: Roque Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Roque, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PETRO MECHANICAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
7:20-cv-00087-DC (W.D. Tex., April 7, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and
other nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours
but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of
forty hours, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate at which they are or were employed," the Plaintiff
alleges. The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to maintain
accurate time and pay records for the Plaintiff as required by the
FLSA, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Roque was employed by the Defendants as a welder from
October 2018 to March 2020.
Petro Mechanical is a mechanical services company that serves the
oil and gas industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
PLURALSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Class Action in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------
Pluralsight, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit that is pending before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah.
In August 2019, a class action complaint was filed by a stockholder
of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, and certain of the Company's
officers alleging violation of securities laws and seeking
unspecified damages.
In October 2019, the action was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah.
The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.
Pluralsight said, "The Company is unable to estimate a range of
loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final
decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it
is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable."
Pluralsight, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company
provides a platform which offers assessments, learning paths and
courses to businesses and individuals seeking to enhance their
programming and IT related skill sets. Pluralsights servces
customers around the world. The company is based in Farmington,
Utah.
PRESTON CHEVROLET-CADILLAC: Ohio App. Affirms CSPA Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga County
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendants Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned PATRICK H.
HATFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRESTON CHEVROLET-CADILLAC, INC.,
d.b.a. PRESTON CHEV-CAD-KIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No.
2018-G-0168. (Ohio App.)
Appellant, Patrick Hatfield, appeals the judgment dismissing his
complaint with prejudice against appellee, Preston
Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc. (Preston).
Hatfield filed a class-action complaint against Preston alleging
violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) and
Ohio's Administrative Code 109:4-3-16(B)(17) & (21). His complaint
sets forth three claims for relief and attaches two documents, the
Closed End Motor Vehicle Lease and Retail Lease Order. Hatfield
generally avers that Preston routinely commits acts declared
deceptive by including a lease-acquisition fee, in addition to the
agreed upon value, on its pre-printed lease agreement forms.
Hatfield raises one assignment of error:
The trial court erred in granting Preston's motion to dismiss
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) based on Regulation M of the Federal
Truth in Lending Act because (a) Regulation M does not supersede
state law, and (b) Appellee's lease acquisition fee' is prohibited
under Ohio law (OAC 109:4-3-16(B)(21) and case law interpreting
that law.
The Appellate Court reviews the trial court's decision granting
motions to dismiss de novo, without deference to the trial court's
decision.
Upon reviewing motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for
which relief can be granted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the Appellate
Court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and
dismiss only when it appears beyond doubt from the complaint that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery.
Hatfield alleges that the Ohio Adm. Code does not authorize the
charging of a lease-acquisition fee and that the regular charging
of such a fee constitutes a violation of OAC 109:4-3-16(B)(17) &
(21).
In his second claim for relief, Hatfield alleges that Preston's
inclusion of the lease-acquisition fee negligently misrepresented
to him and the class that the fee was proper.
Hatfield's third and final claim for relief avers that Preston
materially misrepresented that the inclusion of the
lease-acquisition fee was proper, even though it is in violation of
Ohio law, and that this misrepresentation constitutes fraud.
Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(17) & (21) state:
It shall be a deceptive and unfair act or practice for a dealer,
manufacturer, advertising association, or advertising group, in
connection with the advertisement or sale of a motor vehicle, to:
Raise or attempt to raise the actual purchase price of any motor
vehicle to a specific consumer.
A plain reading of Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-16(B)(21) reveals that it
does not preclude a dealer or seller of an automobile from charging
fees other than those specified. To the contrary, a plain reading
confirms that this provision is designed to ensure that the
advertised price includes all costs, except those specified. Thus,
one of the included costs in a car's advertised price could be a
lease-acquisition fee, and accordingly, a lease-acquisition fee is
not in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(21) as long as that
fee is encompassed in the advertised price of the vehicle.
Thus, to the extent that Hatfield's complaint avers that Preston's
act of charging a lease-acquisition fee is illegal or contrary to
this provision, the Appellate Court disagrees.
As for Hatfield's first count, based on the allegation that the
lease-acquisition fee was included after the fact, Hatfield alleges
that Preston raised his vehicle's lease price in violation of Ohio
Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(17) by inserting this lease-acquisition fee
via its pre-printed form lease agreements, or that Preston failed
to include the lease-acquisition fee in the advertised price
contrary to Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(21).
However, Hatfield only alleges that Preston's advertised price was
conveyed to him and the other potential class members via the Lease
Agreement, and because the agreed upon value set forth as $29,300
does not include the $595 lease-acquisition fee, Preston has raised
the price and/or advertised to a price different than the one
charged in violation of the foregoing Ohio Administrative Code
Sections.
The Appellate Court disagrees.
Hatfield's argument confuses a vehicle's stated agreed upon value
with the advertised price. This misunderstanding is best evidenced
by his allegation in paragraph 24 of his complaint, which states in
part:
Typicality: Mr. Hatfield's claim is identical to the claims of
other class members, being charged by Preston a fee in excess of
the agreed upon value of the leased vehicle stated on a standard,
pre-printed lease agreement.
This is also not a case in which Hatfield claims, for example, that
he was orally advised of a price other than that set forth in the
Lease Agreement that did not include the lease-acquisition fee or
that he saw a television commercial that advertised the lease price
for an amount that did not include this fee.
Hatfield's sole assignment of error lacks merit, and the trial
court's decision is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' November 18, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ryvqdxk from Leagle.com.
Ronald I. Frederick , and Michael L. Berler , Frederick & Berler,
LLC, 767 East 185th Street, Cleveland, OH 44119 (For
Plaintiff-Appellant).
Robert A. Poklar , and Matthew Charles Miller , Weston Hurd, LLP,
The Tower at Erieview, 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 1900,
Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellee).
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Xia Class Suit Over Total Outage of OS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mengni Xia, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,
and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02352 (N.D. Cal.,
April 7, 2020), is brought for several claims, including breach of
contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of
California consumer protection laws arising from a total outage of
the Defendants' operating systems.
Robinhood's customers place securities trades through the firm's
Web site, by using a web-based application, or by calling the
firm's help center. Unfortunately for Robinhood's customers,
including the Plaintiff, Robinhood's trading systems completely
crashed on Monday, March 2, 2020, and experienced a total outage of
its operating systems. Throughout the entire trading day,
Robinhood's customers were prevented from making any securities
trades through the firm's Web site, app, or call center.
As a result of the Outage, the Plaintiff brings this class action
on behalf of Robinhood customers who were denied access to their
Robinhood trading accounts during the Outage and for the many,
including herself, who suffered losses in their Robinhood trading
accounts specifically as a result of their inability to place any
securities or options trades during the Outage.
The Plaintiff is a customer of Robinhood and entered into a
Customer Agreement in order to use Robinhood's online trading
systems.
Robinhood Financial is registered as a broker-dealer with the U.S.
Securities & Exchange Commission.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC
1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 940-1606
Facsimile: (949) 606-9690
Email: tomm@maurlaw.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267-507-6085
Fax: 267-507-6048
Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action in Calif. Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Quiroz Guerrero
v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.
On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company
violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime
wages, permit required meal and rest breaks and provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims.
This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California's
Private Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary
payments (Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et
al.; Case No RIC1804127).
Ruth's Hospitality said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or
reasonable estimated at this time, we intend to vigorously defend
this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its
restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion
diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The
Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House
trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in
Winter Park, Florida.
S S D ENTERPRISES: Refuses to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, McMinn Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly McMinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. S S D ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A THE RITZ HOUSTON, SC
SAXENIAN, MIKE DOE, LAUREN DOE, RICK DOE AND LYNN DOE individuals,
Case No. 4:20-cv-01243 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for damages resulting from their evading the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips.
The Plaintiff has been denied minimum wage payments and denied
overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the
Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors," says the complaint. The Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in
violation of the FLSA. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA,
which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for their
overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay. Furthermore, the Defendants' practice of failing to
pay tipped employees, violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision.
The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in
October 2017 through January 2018.
The Defendants own and operate a strip club named THE RITZ.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
craft@hughesellzey.com
leigh@hughesellzey.com
SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFFS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Zayas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CANDIDO ZAYAS, et al., v. SAN
FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-06155-JCS
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order
denying a class certification motion without prejudice to
addressing the propriety of certifying a settlement class in the
motion for preliminary approval.
The Court said, "The motion for preliminary approval shall be filed
by April 24, 2020. The Court will notify the parties if it
determines that oral 20 argument is necessary. To the extent
applicable, the Motion for Preliminary Approval should conform to
the requirements set forth in the Class Action Settlement Guidance
found on the website for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California under the
"Attorneys" tab."
The San Francisco Sheriff's Office, officially the City and County
of San Francisco Sheriff's Office, is the sheriff's office for the
City and County of San Francisco.[CC]
SEVERO OZUNA: Settlement in Camilo Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RODRIGO CAMILO, et al. v.
SEVERO C. OZUNA, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02842-VKD (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order:
1. granting the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
settlement;
2. granting in part the motion for attorneys' fees, costs and
service awards. Specifically, the Court awards $93,750 in
attorneys' fees, $7,776.63 in litigation costs; $15,000 to
the claims administrator, CPT Group, Inc.; and $5,000 each
to Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro Camilo, Ricardo Sanchez, and
Jose Lopez as service awards.;
3. directing the Parties to file a stipulation for dismissal
promptly upon fulfillment of the terms of the approved
settlement.
The Court said, "Each named plaintiff seeks a service award of
$5,000. Courts in this district have recognized that a $5,000
service award is "presumptively reasonable." Here, each plaintiff
avers that he is the sole provider for his family. While their
declarations are vague as to exactly how much time they spent on
this case, it appears that each plaintiff may have lost up to
several days of work to meet with class counsel and to attend the
mediation. Additionally, at least two plaintiffs state that they
incurred significant travel costs, namely Mr. Lopez (who says he
has lived in Sacramento since 2015) and Mr. Sanchez who says he was
required to make at least one 70-mile round trip. The Court grants
the requested service awards of $5,000 for each plaintiff."
The Plaintiffs Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro Camilo, Ricardo Sanchez, and
Jose Lopez filed this hybrid class action and collective action for
alleged wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code
and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
"shaved" work hours from their paychecks on a regular basis, with
the result that the plaintiffs were not paid minimum wages and were
not compensated for all the overtime hours they worked.
The Defendants are Severo C. Ozuna and the Don Vito Ozuna Food
Corporation.[CC]
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Garcia
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Amber Garcia et al. v. Shasta
Beverages Inc. et al., Case No. CV 19-7798 PA (AFMx) (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification of:
"all persons who are or were employed (whether directly or
through a temp agency) by Corporate Defendants in the state
of California as non-exempt employees who occupied hourly
non-exempt positions including, but not limited to,
Production Workers and Shipping Clerks, within four years
prior to the date this lawsuit is filed until resolution of
this lawsuit."
Judge Anderson said, "The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed
to present good cause in support of an extension. Additional
evidence of potential labor violations will not alleviate the
predominance issue presented by this proposed class. For example,
even if the Plaintiff could produce a dozen more declarations
alleging missed meal periods and breaks, the Court would still have
to make individualized inquiries in light of the reality that some
employees chose to skip their meal/break, while others were
pressured to miss their meal/break. Ultimately, the proposed class
is too unwieldy because Shasta's employees appear to have wholly
different work experiences based on their particular facility,
department, and supervisor. Plus, class members' experiences differ
based on whether or not they are covered by a collective bargaining
agreement. For these reasons, the Court finds that an extension of
time will not resolve the predominance issue in this action. The
Court therefore denies the Plaintiff's request for extension of
time."
The Plaintiff was previously employed as a production worker at
Shasta's La Mirada facility. On July 26, 2019, she filed a wage and
hour class action complaint against Shasta.
Shasta Beverages is an American soft drink manufacturer which
markets a value priced soft drink line with a wide variety of soda
flavors under the brand name Shasta.[CC]
SWITCH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Cai Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Switch, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the putative
class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al., are
engaged in discovery.
Four substantially similar putative class action complaints,
captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018);
Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v.
Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch,
Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial
District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single
case (the "State Court Securities Action").
Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint
captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court
Securities Action," and collectively with the State Court
Securities Action, the "Securities Actions") and subsequently
transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August
2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff.
These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch,
Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) alleging federal securities
law violations in connection with the IPO.
These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch,
Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek
unspecified damages and other relief.
In October 2018, the state court granted the defendants' motion to
stay the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal
Court Securities Action, which stay was affirmed by the Nevada
Supreme Court in September 2019.
In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities
Action filed an amended complaint.
In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike.
In July 2019, the federal court granted Switch, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss in part, which narrowed the scope of the plaintiff’s
case. In December 2019, Switch, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings and the parties are waiting for the federal court to
rule on the motion.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery in the Federal Court
Securities Action.
Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend against them.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides
colocation space and related services primarily to technology and
digital media companies in the United States. It develops and
operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. Switch, Inc. was
founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.
SYNERGIES3 TEC: Overland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Talon Overland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Synergies3 TEC Services, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00447-FB
(W.D. Tex., April 9, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other installation
technicians as "independent contractors" and failed to pay them 1.5
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an installation
technician from September 2018 to October 2019.
Synergies3 is a satellite installation provider for AT&T (DirecTV).
Synergies3 provides satellite installation services to AT&T
customers across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Jay Eidsness, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
Email: srey@nka.com
jeidness@nka.com
TANDEM DIABETES: Faces Deluna Suit Over Jan. 2020 Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Deluna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TANDEM DIABETES CARE, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00727
(C.D. Cal., April 8, 2020), is brought for actual and statutory
damages, as well as punitive damages for negligence, and violation
of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act.
Between January 17, 2020, and January 20, 2020, Tandem was the
subject of a data breach due to its negligent failure to properly
safeguard the information of its customers, according to the
complaint. The data breach exposed "customer names, contact
information, information related to those customers' use of
Tandem's products or services, clinical data regarding their
diabetes therapy, and in a few limited instances, Social Security
numbers" (collectively, the "PII"). Despite experiencing this data
breach in January 2020, Tandem waited two months to announce the
data breach to consumers in March 2020.
Plaintiff Joseph Deluna is a citizen of California, who is a
customer of Tandem.
Tandem is a medical device manufacturer that specializes in the
treatment of diabetes and insulin infusion therapy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
TEGNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Clay Massey Suit over Ad Rates Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tegna Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss in the class action suit entitled, Clay, Massey &
Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et al., is still pending.
In the third quarter of 2018, certain national media outlets
reported the existence of a confidential investigation by the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) into
the local television advertising sales practices of station owners.
The company received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) in
connection with the DOJ's investigation. The investigation is
ongoing.
On November 13 and December 13, 2018, DOJ and seven broadcasters
settled a DOJ complaint alleging the exchange of competitively
sensitive information in the broadcast television industry.
In June 2019, the company and four other broadcasters entered into
a substantially identical agreement with DOJ, which was entered by
the court on December 3, 2019. The settlement contains no finding
of wrongdoing or liability and carries no penalty.
It prohibits the company and the other settling entities from
sharing certain confidential business information, or using such
information pertaining to other broadcasters, except under limited
circumstances.
The settlement also requires the settling parties to make certain
enhancements to their antitrust compliance programs; to continue to
cooperate with the DOJ's investigation and to permit DOJ to verify
compliance. The company does not expect the costs of compliance to
be material.
Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action
lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the
Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions. Plaintiffs are a
class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States
who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local
television provided by the defendants. The Advertising Cases assert
antitrust and other claims and seek monetary damages, attorney's
fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against the
allegedly wrongful conduct.
These cases have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
captioned Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc.
et. al., filed on July 30, 2018.
At the court's direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints. Although we
were named as a defendant in sixteen of the original complaints,
the amended complaint did not name TEGNA as a defendant.
After TEGNA and four other broadcasters entered into consent
decrees with the Department of Justice in June 2019, the plaintiffs
sought leave from the court to further amend the complaint to add
TEGNA and the other settling broadcasters to the proceeding. The
court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed the
second amended complaint on September 9, 2019. On October 8, 2019,
the defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the matter.
Tegna said, "We deny any violation of law, believe that the claims
asserted in the Advertising Cases are without merit, and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously against them."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tegna Inc., incorporated on February 23, 1972, is a media company.
The Company provides stories, investigations and marketing
services. It operates 47 television stations in 39 United States
markets and owns four network affiliates. It also provides services
to advertisers through solutions, including its over the top (OTT)
local advertising network, Premion. The company is based in Tysons,
Virginia.
THOMAS MAINTENANCE: Thevenin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Thevenin, Ronald Rivers, Cortavis Anderson, for themselves
and on behalf of all of those similarly situated v. THOMAS
MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation; and MILES
THOMAS, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-21505-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April
8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 over unpaid overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours
within one or more workweeks. In one or more work weeks during
their employment, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs, at rate of one and one-half times their regular rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed as non-exempt landscapers.
THOMAS MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. was, and continues to be, a
Florida profit corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Natalie Staroschak, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: 954-807-7759
Fax: 954-807-7781
Email: nstaroschak@forthepeople.com
TILRAY INC: Faces Braun Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------
Tilray, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a
defendant in a class action suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery
styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137.
On February 27, 2020, stockholders Braun and Noorian filed a class
action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery
styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137.
The suit named Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue,
Maryscott Greenwood, Michael Auerbach, and Privateer Evolution, LLC
(as successor to Privateer Holdings, Inc.) as defendants and Tilray
as a nominal defendant.
The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
Kennedy, Groh, Blue, and Privateer Evolution, LLC for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty in their capacity as Tilray's
controlling stockholders and against Kennedy, Greenwood, and
Auerbach for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in their
capacities as directors and/or officers of Tilray in connection
with the Downstream Merger.
The complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the Downstream
Merger and Tilray's Board to approve that Downstream Merger, and
that Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach breached their
fiduciary duties as directors by approving the Downstream Merger.
Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger gave the Privateer
Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings in which
Tilray did not share equally and that it unfairly transferred and
extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh’s control over Tilray.
Tilray said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses to these
matters and will continue to vigorously defend against them, but
there are no assurances as to their outcome at this time. An
adverse judgment or award against the Company in these cases could
result in an event of default under the terms of the Senior
Facility or the convertible notes."
Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and
distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is
focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and
distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based
in Nanaimo, British Columbia.
TLG FAMILY MANAGEMENT: Ruffolo Sues Over Unlawful Time Shaving
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aracelis Ruffolo and Dominique Bonseigneur, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated v. TLG Family Management, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02188 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law regarding its time shaving practice.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy of deducting
30 minutes from the hourly employees' time for a lunch. Often, the
hourly employees were not allowed to take a lunch because they were
busy tending to patients or otherwise working. The Defendant would
adjust the clock-in and clock-out times for the purpose of paying
the hourly employees less. In other words, the Defendant would
"shave" time off of the hours to pay the Plaintiffs less money.
As a result of the lunch and other time deductions, the Plaintiffs
were working in excess of 40 hours in a single work week and not
being paid for that time and were not paid one and one-half times
their regular hourly rate of pay for all time worked in excess of
40 hours in individual work weeks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are citizens of Illinois, who were employed by TLG.
TLG Family Management, LLC is a Texas limited liability company
which manages The LaSalle Group, Inc., which in turns owns several
assisted living facilities throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
TOUGH MUDDER: McKinnon Employment Suit Removed to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA MCKINNON, CLAIRE
LARBEY, DANIEL PARKE, IRENE CARIAS, JAKE RABOY, JAMES MCGUINNES,
NICOLA PORTER-SMITH, and JOHN LITTLE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. TOUGH MUDDER INCORPORATED and
TOUGH MUDDER EVENT PRODUCTION INCORPORATED, Case No. 655092/2020
(Filed Feb. 13, 2020), was removed from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on March 19, 2020.
The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00390-UNA to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs allege violations of the New York Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act, New York Labor Law, arising from
the termination of their employment on February 3, 2020.
Tough Mudder is a lifestyle, events and media company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donna L. Culver, Esq.
Joseph C. Barsalona II, Esq.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
Telephone: (302) 658-9200
TWILIO INC: Compliance Hearing in Flowers Case Set for May 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that a compliance hearing has been
scheduled for May 19, 2020, in the Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc.
class action suit.
On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela
Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company's
products permit the interception, recording and disclosure of
communications at a customer's request and are in violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.
On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiff's class certification motion. The
court certified two classes of individuals who, during specified
time periods, allegedly sent or received certain communications
involving the accounts of three of the Company's customers that
were recorded.
Following mediation, on January 7, 2019, the parties signed a long
form settlement agreement, providing for a payment of $10.0 million
into a common fund and injunctive relief involving certain updates
to Twilio's Acceptable Use Policy and customer documentation.
On January 15, 2019, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the parties signed an
amended settlement agreement to conform to the court's order.
The court entered a final order and judgment approving the
settlement on June 17, 2019. On August 30, 2019, Twilio made a
payment of $1.7 million to fund the settlement.
A compliance hearing has been scheduled for May 19, 2020.
Any additional loss related to this matter is neither probable nor
reasonably possible.
Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables
developers to build, scale, and operate communications within
software applications in the United States and internationally. The
company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of
application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed
voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications.
Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.
TWILIO INC: Settlement in Bauman Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the case,
Jeremy Bauman v. David Saxe, et al., have filed an unopposed motion
for settlement and an unopposed motion to dismiss the Company from
the action without prejudice.
On September 1, 2015, Twilio was named as a defendant in a First
Amended Complaint in a putative class action captioned Jeremy
Bauman v. David Saxe, et al. pending in the United States District
Court, District of Nevada relating to the alleged sending of
unsolicited text messages to the plaintiffs and putative class
members.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted, and on
September 20, 2016 the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
with additional allegations that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Nevada Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("NDTPA"), NRS 41.600(2)(e).
On January 10, 2019, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under the TCPA and denied plaintiff’s request to
certify a class under the NDTPA. On February 13, 2019, the court
issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss as to
Plaintiffs' TCPA claim and granting dismissal as to Plaintiffs'
NDTPA claim.
On February 22, 2019, the court stayed the case and directed all
parties to mediation, which was conducted on May 15, 2019. On May
17, 2019, the original defendants (the "Saxe Defendants") and
Twilio entered an agreement, which among other things, obligates
the Saxe Defendants to fully fund all monetary and non-monetary
aspects of the settlement of the matter and to obtain the dismissal
of the plaintiffs’ and the class’s claims against the Company
with prejudice.
On October 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
settlement and an unopposed motion to dismiss Twilio from the
action without prejudice.
Twilio said, "Based on, among other things, the dismissal motion
and our agreement with the Saxe Defendants, the Company does not
believe a loss is reasonably possible or estimable."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables
developers to build, scale, and operate communications within
software applications in the United States and internationally. The
company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of
application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed
voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications.
Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Australia Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit in Austrailia.
In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against the company and
certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in
the taxi and hire-car industry.
The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure
the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly
breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against
transport legislation by UberX Rides Drivers in Australia.
Uber said, "We deny these allegations and intend to vigorously
defend against the lawsuit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary
technology applications that enable independent providers of
ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact
with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two
segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly
known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies,
Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Utley Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela M. Utley, Andrea Utley and Alexandra C. Schrockv, on behalf
of themselves and all those similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES
HOLDINGS, INC. AND UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00756-SO
(N.D. Ohio, April 7, 2020), is brought for breach of contract and
monetary relief for damages exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of all
interest, costs, and attorney's fees.
On January 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Utley, AU and Schrock purchased
airline tickets from United under Confirmation Number EMR4TP. The
Plaintiffs were scheduled to depart Cleveland, Ohio, on Sunday May
3, 2020, and arrive in Paris, France, on May 4, 2020. In between,
the Plaintiffs had scheduled layover stops in Toronto, Canada. The
Plaintiffs were scheduled to return on May 16, 2020, departing from
Dublin, Ireland, and arriving in Cleveland, Ohio.
United has cancelled and/or effectively cancelled and/or caused the
Plaintiffs to incur such significant delays regarding their
contracted flights that United must provide them with full and
immediate refunds for the unused portion(s) of their respective
flight tickets, but United refuses to offer and/or provide said
full and immediate refunds, the Plaintiffs aver.
The Plaintiffs assert that they have fully complied with their
obligations under the Contract of Carriage, but the various
national and state guidelines, laws, rules and regulations, etc.,
have made it impossible for them to use their airline tickets to
travel to their intended destinations. Moreover, United has engaged
in an intentional scheme to confuse customers related to its refund
policy, which so far has not resulted in the required immediate
refunds, the Plaintiffs allege. However, on March 7, 2020, the same
day the WHO reported in excess of 100,000 COVID-19 cases in 94
countries, United altered its policy to require a flight time
change of at least 25 hours to receive a refund.
Thereafter, on March 10, 2020, United instituted a policy offering
refunds only if "departure or arrival time significantly changes."
Next, on March 14, 2020, United instituted its current policy of
providing credits--not refunds--until one year passes from the
original date of purchase, at which time a refund "may" be issued.
United is refusing and/or failing to provide required full and
immediate refunds to Plaintiffs and Class Members and required
under the Contract of Carriage, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased airfare directly from United for travel
within the United State of America and internationally, including
airfare for travel between Ohio and Paris, France.
United is one of the largest commercial airlines in the world and
conducts air passenger services throughout the United States of
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
CONNICK LAW, LLC
25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: 216-364-0512
Facsimile: 216-609-3446
Email: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
UNIVERSAL GROUP: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Electricians
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN M. GONZALEZ, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. UNIVERSAL GROUP 1, INC., MARTIN F. PEREZ, and LEON
AZICRI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-21379-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., March 30, 2020) is a class action to recover money damages
for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the provisions of Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was was hired as an electrician, worked in
excess of 66 hours every week, but the Defendants paid him for only
48 hours at his regular rate. The Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff for the remaining 18 overtime hours.
Universal Group 1, Inc. is a commercial and residential general
contractor, performing construction work in Dade County, Florida.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
US ECOLOGY: Sullivan to Proceed Solely with PAGA Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
US Ecology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that Kevin Sullivan amended his
complaint to dismiss the class claims without prejudice and proceed
solely with The Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim.
In January 2019, Kevin Sullivan, a driver for NRC Group Holdings
Corp. (NRC) from May 1, 2018 to August 22, 2018 filed a class
action complaint against NRC in California Superior Court (Kevin
Sullivan et. Al. v. National Response Corp., NRC Environmental
Services, Inc. and Paul Taveira et al.) alleging the failure by the
defendants to provide meal and rest breaks required by California
law and requiring employees to work off the clock.
Mr. Sullivan's complaint also asserted a claim under the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which permits an
employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California
Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to
recover statutory penalties that could be recovered by the State of
California.
On April 17, 2019, NRC filed a motion to compel individual
arbitration, strike Mr. Sullivan's class action claims and stay the
PAGA claim pending the outcome of Mr. Sullivan's individual claim;
the Court subsequently granted NRC's motion to compel.
In response, Mr. Sullivan amended his complaint to dismiss the
class claims without prejudice and proceed solely with the PAGA
claim. Unlike class claims, PAGA claims cannot be waived by an
employee's agreement to individual arbitration; therefore, the case
is proceeding as a pure representative PAGA claim only, absent any
individual or class claims against the Company or NRC.
US Ecology said, "While the Company believes that Mr. Sullivan's
claims lack merit, the Company is currently unable to estimate the
range of possible losses associated with this proceeding."
US Ecology, Inc. is a leading provider of environmental services to
commercial and governmental entities. The Company addresses the
complex waste management and response needs of its customers,
offering treatment, disposal and recycling of hazardous,
non-hazardous and radioactive waste, leading emergency response and
standby services, and a wide range of complementary field and
industrial services. The company is based in Boise, Idaho.
VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Lawsuit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the purported personal injury
class action entitled, Young v. American Tobacco Co., remains
stayed.
In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure.
The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. No class certification hearing
has been held.
The stay order entered on March 16, 2016 stays the case pending
completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in
Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in
domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.
WALMART INC: Faces Sousa Labor Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Sousa, on behalf of himself and the Class members v. WALMART
INC. and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:20-at-00248 (E.D.
Cal., April 7, 2020), is brought to recover all unpaid wages,
compensation, penalties, and other damages, and to seek remedy from
the sweeping practices the Defendants have integrated into their
time tracking, payroll, and security policies across their stores
throughout California that have deprived the Plaintiff of his
lawfully-earned wages.
The Plaintiff contends that he has been denied payment for all
hours worked, including overtime; has been forced to wait in
security-check lines while off-the-clock; and has been denied
statutorily-required rest periods. This case implicates the
Defendants' longstanding policies and practices, which fails to
properly compensate non-exempt employees for rest periods and for
work performed while "off-the-clock." The Defendant's conduct
violates California law by knowingly and willfully requiring the
Plaintiff to perform work and/or remain on duty for the benefit of
the Defendants while off-the-clock, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed as a non-exempt employee by the
Defendants at the Wal-Mart store in Hanford, California.
The Defendants operate retail stores throughout the state doing
business as Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Wal-Mart Supercenters, and
Sam's Club.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Ryan M. Hecht, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
rhecht@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
William M. Hogg, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (713) 338-2560
Fax: (415) 421-7105
Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com
WYNNE TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Smith, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00818-D
(N.D. Tex., April 7, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act
by failing to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half his regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day
workweek.
The Plaintiff was not paid time and one-half their respective
regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day
workweek, was paid at least $7.25 per hour based on all
remuneration received in a workweek relative to the corresponding
hours worked during each such workweek, and/or have/had some or all
of their tips retained, taken, and/or or kept by the Defendant,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a driver for the Defendant.
The Defendant provides ground transportation service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 251-4157
Facsimile: (214) 261-5159
Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
ZOGENIX INC: Final Judgment of Dismissal Filed in Lake Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zogenix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that a final judgment in favor of the
company and its executive officers was filed in the class action
suit entitled, Lake v. Zogenix, Case No. 3:19-cv-01975-RS.
On April 12, 2019, a plaintiff stockholder filed a class action
lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California captioned Lake v. Zogenix, Case No. 3:19-cv-01975-RS.
The plaintiff sought to represent a class of investors who
purchased our stock between February 6, 2019 and April 8, 2019, and
alleges that certain statements made during this period regarding
the prospects for our NDA for Fintepla were false or misleading.
On October 4, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in the action.
On January 27, 2020, the court entered an order dismissing the
complaint without prejudice. Rather than amend the complaint, the
plaintiffs opted to voluntarily dismiss their claims.
A final judgment in favor of Zogenix and its executive officers was
filed on February 13, 2020.
Zogenix, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes therapies for the treatment of transformative
central nervous system disorders in the United States. The company
was formerly known as SJ2 Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name
to Zogenix, Inc. in August 2006. Zogenix, Inc. was founded in 2006
and is headquartered in Emeryville, California.
ZOOM VIDEO: Johnston Sues Over Sharing of Users' Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa T. Johnston, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case
No. 5:20-cv-02376 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for, among other things, negligence, breach of
implied contract, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy
Act, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition
Law.
The Plaintiff seeks equitable relief against the Defendant and
damages sustained by the Plaintiff and other Class members as a
result of the Defendant's: unlawful sharing of users' personal
information with third parties, including Facebook, Inc., without
adequate notice to or authorization from users; failure to
safeguard its users' confidential, sensitive personal information;
failure to provide adequate security, as promised, to avoid breach
and infiltration (e.g., "Zoombombing") of users' videoconferences;
and unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business practices relating to
Zoom's data security.
The Defendant also fails to implement proper security measures to
protect users' privacy and secure their videoconferences, according
to the complaint. As a result, "Zoombombing" by uninvited
participants has become frequent. Contrary to the Defendant's
promises, Zoom's videoconferences are not end-to-end (also known as
"E2E") encrypted--which means that in addition to the participating
users, the Defendant has the technical ability to spy on the
videoconferences and, when compelled by the government or others,
to reveal the contents of the videoconferences without the users'
consent.
Ms. Johnston has registered an account with Zoom using an Apple
laptop computer.
Zoom provides video-communication services using a cloud platform
for video and audio conferencing, collaboration, chat, and
webinars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis A. Bottini, Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 914-2001
Fax: (858) 914-2002
Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
- and -
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Tyson Redenbarger, Esq.
Anya N. Thepot, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
athepot@cpmlegal.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $208MM Liability Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$207,633,000 reserve at December
31, 2019, for the total costs, including defense costs, for
Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2052, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the
Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for the Asbestos Liability. Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for the Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013
as of December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis has been periodically
updated since that time. In 2018, the Corporation engaged Nathan
Associates Inc. ("Nathan") to update the liability valuation, and
additional reserves were established by the Corporation as of
December 31, 2018, for the Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2052.
"Nathan estimated in 2018 the number of future claims for the
Asbestos Liability that would be filed through the year 2052, as
well as the settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to
resolve both pending and future unasserted claims through 2052.
This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts.
"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for the Asbestos Liability. In developing the estimate,
the Corporation considered Nathan's projection for settlement or
indemnity costs for the Asbestos Liability and management's
projection of associated defense costs (based on the current
defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional
factors. These additional factors included the Settlement
Agreements in effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy
provisions regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points,
prior impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy
exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers,
and the nature of the underlying claims for the Asbestos Liability
asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected
in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated
erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden
arising out of the Products. In addition to consulting with the
Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the
Corporation consulted with a nationally recognized insurance
consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain
policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors
considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries
from relevant historical insurance for the Asbestos Liability.
Based upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and
taking into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly
available information regarding the credit-worthiness of various
insurers, the Corporation estimated the probable insurance
recoveries for the Asbestos Liability and defense costs through
2052.
"The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2018, for the total
costs, including defense costs, for the Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, was
US$227,922,000. Defense costs are estimated at 80% of settlement
costs. The reserve at December 31, 2019, was US$207,633,000.
"The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2018, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2018, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and
defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability
claims, was US$152,508,000 (US$136,932,000 at December 31, 2019)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/NJtPOH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 124 Pending Talc Suits at December 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were 124 individual cases pending against Avon Products,
Inc., as of December 31, 2019, related to allegations that certain
talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos. Many of these actions involve a number
of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos. As of December 31, 2019, there were 124 individual cases
pending against the Company. During the three months ended
December 31, 2019, 21 new cases were filed and three cases were
dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved. The value of our
settlements in this area thus far has not been material, either
individually or in the aggregate. Additional similar cases arising
out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably
anticipated.
"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims
and will continue to do so. To date, the Company has not proceeded
to trial in any case filed against it and there have been no
findings of liability enforceable against the Company. However,
nationwide trial results in similar cases filed against other
manufacturers of cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright
dismissals to very large jury awards of both compensatory and
punitive damages. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot predict the outcome of all individual cases pending
against the Company, and we are only able to make a reasonable
estimate for a small number of individual cases that have advanced
to the later stages of legal proceedings. For the remaining cases,
we provide an estimate of exposure on an aggregated and ongoing
basis, which takes into account the historical outcomes of all
cases we have resolved to date. Any accruals currently recorded on
the Company's balance sheet with respect to these cases are not
material. Other than these accruals, we are at this time unable to
estimate our reasonably possible or probable losses. However, any
adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate,
could be material. Future costs to litigate these cases, which we
expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though
some costs will be covered by insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/GkLOIL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Lift Stay Filed in D/C Bankruptcy Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that on January 21, 2020, certain asbestos
claimants filed a Stay Relief Motion in the Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No.
07-12776, seeking a Court order to, among other things, modify the
automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy to permit those claimants to
prosecute various lawsuits in state courts against D/C
Distribution, LLC, and to recover on any judgment or settlement
solely from any available insurance coverage.
The Company states, "On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a
lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C
Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was
served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for
such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that
it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and
indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the
policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the
material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the
material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the
terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted;
that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys'
fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have
been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to
recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has
paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In
addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement
with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land
provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by
D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy
at issue in this lawsuit.
"In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. Such settlement amount
was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the secured
indebtedness.
"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately
US$26,800,000, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany
debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal
injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with
asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of
approximately two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that
a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C
that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the
trustee will deal with these claims. It is not expected, however,
that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in
the liquidation of D/C.
"On January 21, 2020, certain asbestos claimants filed a Stay
Relief Motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 07-12776 ("motion to lift
stay"). The motion seeks the entry of an order, among other
things, modifying the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy to
permit those claimants to prosecute various lawsuits in state
courts against D/C Distribution, LLC, and to recover on any
judgment or settlement solely from any available insurance
coverage. Various oppositions to the motion to lift stay have been
filed, and the matter is set for hearing for sometime in April 2020
or such other time as is set by the court. It is not clear that
the court will grant such a motion or the terms and conditions of
such a motion, including limiting recovery to insurance, if such
insurance exists.
"The parties in the D/C and in the prior pending Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy have reached out to each other to determine if there is
any interest in pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the
prior Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the D/C bankruptcy insofar as the
Fireman's Fund insurance policies are concerned. Such discussions
are currently taking place. There are no assurances that a
settlement of all claims and controversies relating to Waipio can
be reached."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/JcidYt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Records $255MM Liability at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation has recorded US$255 million for
estimated total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted
potential future asbestos claims through 2059, according to the
Company's Form S-1 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 13, 2020. The amount is principally recorded
in Other long-term liabilities on the Combined Balance Sheet as of
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, we and
our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our historical products or business
premises. While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporate it in any of our products, certain of our historical
products, like those of many other manufacturers, contained
components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were
covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any
year.
"The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately US$255 million to US$290 million. Where no amount
within a range of estimates is more likely, the minimum is accrued.
We have recorded the minimum amount of US$255 million, which is
principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on the Combined
Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2019. This amount is on a pre-tax
basis, not discounted, and excludes our legal fees to defend the
asbestos claims, which will continue to be expensed as they are
incurred. This estimate was developed by UTC with the assistance
of an outside actuarial expert and was based not only on UTC's
analysis of its own asbestos claims history from 2010 through 2015
and its contractual insurance coverage litigations, but also on
broader nationwide asbestos trend data, including a substantial
drop in non-malignant asbestos claims; an increasing focus on
malignancy claims, primarily those involving mesothelioma, a cancer
that now has an historical and fairly predictable future annual
incidence rate; and a substantial decrease in average annual claim
filings. In addition, we have an insurance recovery receivable for
probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$104
million, which is included primarily in Other assets on our
Combined Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2019.
"The amounts we have recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable. Our actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions. Key variables in these assumptions include the number
and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes or
resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of each
new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation
methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we
have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with
other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved
settlements and the solvency risk with respect to co-defendants and
our insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect our future
liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal
rulings that may be made by state and federal courts and the
passage of state or federal legislation. At the end of each year,
we will evaluate all of these factors and, with input from an
outside actuarial expert, make any necessary adjustments to both
our estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries."
A full-text copy of the Form S-q is available at
https://is.gd/YLWYYO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Had $3.0MM Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. recorded a liability of US$3.0
million related to potential future asbestos abatement activities
at its properties as of December 31, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "All of our Properties (but not properties for
which we hold an option to purchase but do not yet own) have been
subject to Phase I environmental assessments or updates of existing
Phase I environmental assessments. Such assessments generally
consisted of a visual inspection of the Properties, review of
federal and state environmental databases and certain information
regarding historic uses of the Property and adjacent areas and the
preparation and issuance of written reports. Some of the
Properties contain, or contained, underground storage tanks used
for storing petroleum products or wastes typically associated with
automobile service or other operations conducted at the Properties.
Certain Properties contain, or contained, dry-cleaning
establishments utilizing solvents. Where believed to be warranted,
samplings of building materials or subsurface investigations were
undertaken. At certain Properties, where warranted by the
conditions, we have developed and implemented an operations and
maintenance program that establishes operating procedures with
respect to asbestos-containing materials. The cost associated with
the development and implementation of such programs was not
material. We have also obtained environmental insurance coverage
at certain of our Properties.
"We believe that our Properties are in compliance in all material
respects with all federal, state and local ordinances and
regulations regarding the handling, discharge and emission of
hazardous or toxic substances. As of December 31, 2019, we have
recorded in our consolidated financial statements a liability of
US$3.0 million related to potential future asbestos abatement
activities at our Properties which are not expected to have a
material impact on our financial condition or results of
operations. We have not been notified by any governmental
authority, and are not otherwise aware, of any material
noncompliance, liability or claim relating to hazardous or toxic
substances in connection with any of our present or former
Properties. Therefore, we have not recorded any liability related
to hazardous or toxic substances. Nevertheless, it is possible
that the environmental assessments available to us do not reveal
all potential environmental liabilities. It is also possible that
subsequent investigations will identify material contamination,
that adverse environmental conditions have arisen subsequent to the
performance of the environmental assessments, or that there are
material environmental liabilities of which management is unaware.
Moreover, no assurances can be given that (i) future laws,
ordinances or regulations will not impose any material
environmental liability or (ii) the current environmental condition
of the Properties has not been or will not be affected by tenants
and occupants of the Properties, by the condition of properties in
the vicinity of the Properties or by third parties unrelated to us,
the Operating Partnership or the relevant Property's partnership."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/pVnWe0
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Exposure Suits at Dec. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
related to asbestos matters, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2019.
The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to three
lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda Bridgeman,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert
Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374, styled Charles
Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 and styled
Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et
al. No. 18-L-2.
"All three lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in
excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former employee or
the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased
contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while
employed by us. Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a
tentative trial date has been set for one of the cases. We have
denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and are
unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at this
time.
"In August of 2017, the lawsuit styled Sandra D. Watts,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne
Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw
Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 was placed in the category of "special
closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending" to all
remaining defendants.
"In March 2018, the lawsuit styled Charles Anderson, Individually
and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Anderson,
Deceased vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed without
prejudice.
"In October 2018, the lawsuit styled Danny Atkins and Pamela
Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2 was
dismissed without prejudice."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/cHTVFu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 32 PI Suits at January 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend themselves against 32
pending asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of January 31,
2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
January 31, 2020.
The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as
well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building
fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent
risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the
use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the
future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss,
personal injury or property damage or violated environmental,
health or safety or other laws.
"Such product liability claims have included and may in the future
include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design,
a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence,
strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain
of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed
prior to 1979.
"Since 2002 and as of January 31, 2020, approximately 1,007
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed and we
vigorously defend against them. Of these, 965 have been dismissed
without any payment by us, 32 are pending and only 10 have been
settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our
financial condition or operating results."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5c2NFA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Defends 3,465 Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2019, 3,398 individual cases and 67
multiple-plaintiff cases are pending that allege actual or
potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or
exposure to products allegedly sold by Graybar Electric Company,
Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against
us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne
virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation
and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability
with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the
continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that
could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed
against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these
claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in
federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement
amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Because
any of these factors may change, our future exposure is
unpredictable, and it is possible that we may incur costs that
would have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial
position, or results of operations in future periods."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/12b7Tk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 2 Suits and Claims for $30,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company settled two asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims for US$30,000 in the three months ended February 29, 2020,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
February 29, 2020.
The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek
damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the
result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.
"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.
"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of
our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent.
"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff.
To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our
probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.
"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UT0ur0
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to face asbestos lawsuits related to
its discontinued heat technologies segment, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
IntriCon Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant along with a
number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have
or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of
exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold
by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the
discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March
2005. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the
Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid
claims against the Company.
"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.
"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.
"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.
"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/JPTesc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC continues to face personal injury suits related
to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal
injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While
there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were
a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California).
"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation.
"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will
result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there
can be no assurance in that regard."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/JcidYt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at December 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that it has been named as a defendant in several
multi-defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits.
The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In
the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/dyO4sO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 61,134 PI Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that there are 61,134 asbestos
personal injury claims at year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company also disclosed that there are 3,187 new claims filed in
2019. Settlement payments during the year amounted to US$49.4
million.
The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has
been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of
pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or
groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.
"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the
health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations)
include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty
to the plaintiffs — it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the
asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.
"The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate
amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given
year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ZRdnix
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 108 Pending Cases at December 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. is still defending itself against 108
asbestos-related cases, involving a total of approximately 583
plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated
by us. There are 108 of these types of cases pending, involving a
total of approximately 583 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of
approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed
or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts. We do not
expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet
the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have
not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the
uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the
liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in
any of these matters.
"Based on information available to us, including facts concerning
historical operations, the rate of new claims, the number of claims
from which we have been dismissed, and our prior experience in the
defense of these matters, we believe that the range of reasonably
possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our
historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not
expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts
material to our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to
vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from
each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received
notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be
brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to
insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing
certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek
indemnification from us.
"In addition to the matters described above, we and our affiliates
are also involved in various other environmental, contractual,
product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment
and other claims and disputes incidental to present and former
businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these
items, although we do not expect additional material insurance
coverage for environmental matters. We currently believe that the
disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes
(including asbestos-related claims), individually or in the
aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity
beyond the accruals already provided."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/2LvXMc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 114 Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 114
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 215 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action. In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3 million compensatory and US$1 million punitive damages; one
count at US$1 million. In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.
"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.
"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/wjOoN2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Suits at Dec. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that it currently estimates its
subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for asbestos
claims is approximately US$0.5 million (excluding costs of
defense).
The Company states, "An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was
acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The
subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining
assets other than proceeds received from insurance settlements. To
date, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed
of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50
years for these claims is approximately US$0.5 million (excluding
costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a
defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively
pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to
the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the
subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary
and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs
and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of their policies. A significant portion of this
primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is
insolvent, and the other primary insurers asserted that the
aggregate limits of their policies had been exhausted. The
subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary.
"In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate
settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and
2007 for US$15.0 million and US$20.0 million, respectively. The
proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to
pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's
asbestos litigation.
"In 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance
carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under
which the carrier is paying 27% of defense and indemnity costs
incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with
asbestos bodily injury claims. The agreement continues until
terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing
a minimum of two years prior written notice.
"As of December 31, 2019, no notice of termination has been given
under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the
subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this
insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The
Company believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary
policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the
subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary
may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund
established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's
primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims
may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/TH0yYM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Defends Suits at January 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company is still facing asbestos-related legal
proceedings, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended January 31, 2020.
The Company states, "We are a party to litigation in the ordinary
course of business. Litigation occasionally involves claims for
punitive, as well as compensatory, damages arising out of the use
of our products. Although we are self-insured to some extent, we
maintain insurance against certain product liability losses. We
are also subject to litigation and administrative and judicial
proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos and the
discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of
these claims assert damages and liability for personal injury,
remedial investigations or clean-up, and other costs and damages."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/hjXq5Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries remain defendants in
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 28, 2019.
The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary WAG, are named defendants in several
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained
asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any
brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its
and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation
and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made
basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant
out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be
material to its consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/I70fYj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Faces 108 Pending PI Cases at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., has 108 pending
personal injury cases related to products manufactured in past
operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "NL has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated
by NL. There are 108 of these types of cases pending, involving a
total of approximately 583 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of
approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed
or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio courts. We do not expect
these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the
courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not
accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty
of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if
any. To date, NL has not been adjudicated liable in any of these
matters. Based on information available to us, including facts
concerning historical operations, the rate of new claims, the
number of claims from which NL has been dismissed, and its prior
experience in the defense of these matters.
"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these
matters will be consistent with NL's historical costs (which are
not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity. NL has
sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a
finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to
time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims
purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including
notices provided to insurers with which it has entered into
settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These
insurers may seek indemnification from NL."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/HH7XH8
*********
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 2020. 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 ***