/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200506.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 91
Headlines
2U INC: Chinn Securities Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Maryland
ABC PHONES: Hardney Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Majumdar Drops Securities Suit
ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Faulkner Settlement Wins Final Approval
AKORN INC: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Data Securities Suit
AMERICAN RENAL: Mediation Ongoing in Vandevar Class Suit
AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Class Suit by Former IMS Staff Underway
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Continues to Defend SDNY Securities Class Suit
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Suit Against Brewers Retail Concluded
ARTARA THERAPEUTICS: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Scarpatetti Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces Jacobowitz FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
AVEO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hackel Suit Still Pending
BA CREDIT: Damage Class Settlement in Interchange Suit Appealed
BA CREDIT: Filer's Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BARRICK GOLD: Matney Sues Plan Fiduciaries for Breach of Duties
BAUMGART RESTAURANT: Ding Seeks to Certify Class
BAXTER INT'L: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs in Silverman Suit
BELLISSIMO DISTRIBUTION: Alonso Sues Over Storage of Biometrics
BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Tran Putative Class Suit
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Massaro Class Suit Over Spam Text
BIG GEYSER: Misrepresents Carbonated Water Products, Mangone Says
BOX INC: Calif. Securities Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BROOKLINE, MA: Alston Appeals Decision in Discrimination Suit
BROOKLINE, MA: Ames Appeals Order in Alston Discrimination Suit
CAESARSTONE LTD: Settlement in Israel Class Suit Pending
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Williams Sues Over Discrimination
CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Ongoing
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Final Hearing on Rael Settlement Set for July 31
CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Gottlieb Class Suit Pending
CLUBCORP USA: Cuenco Sues in California Over Fraud-Related Claims
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Student A Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Travis Ito-Stone Securities Class Action Ongoing
DEUTSCHE BANK: Canadian Precious Metal Suits Dismissed
DEUTSCHE BANK: Continues to Defend FX Related Class Suits in Canada
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Narrows Bill Swap Rate Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: June 11 Final Hearing on TruPS Case Settlement
DEUTSCHE BANK: June 9 Final Hearing on US Agency Bonds Accord
DEUTSCHE BANK: S.D.N.Y. Court Dismisses Shareholders' Class Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement in Precious Metal Suits Awaits Court OK
DI LOGISTICS: Faces Smith Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
DOLGEN NEW YORK: Medina Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
DOLLAR TREE: Agreement in Principle Reached in Former Employee Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager Class Suit Resolved
DOLLAR TREE: Settlement Reached in Distribution Employee Suit
ELKTON FCI: Fails to Contain COVID-19 Outbreak, Wilson Suit Says
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Barrett Seeks to Certify Class Action
ETRADE FINANCIAL: Thompson Challenges Sale to Morgan Stanley
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Gottlieb Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FORT LINCOLN: Stinger Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
FORTY SEVEN: Post Class Suit Challenges Gilead Merger
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Young Suit Seeks Refund of Cancelled Flights
G WILLI FOOD: Suit Over Food Labeling Standards Ongoing
GATEWAY HEALTH: Coltogirone Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy's Bid for Summary Judgment Granted
GENIE ENERGY: Pays $5MM Remaining Liabilities in Suits vs. GRE
GNC HOLDINGS: Pa. Supreme Court Favors Plaintiff in Workweek Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit Set for July 2020
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Little Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
HAMMER HAAG: Griffin Suit Seeks to Certify WARN Act Class
HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Stockholders Litigation Still Ongoing
HC2 HOLDINGS: Suit Over Indemnification Rights Closed
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Appeals Order in Consumer Credit Suit
HORSEHEAD HOLDING: Rule 23 Class Cert. Sought in Securities Suit
IDEANOMICS INC: Miranda Suit in New York Ongoing
INTEGRATED CAPITAL: Martinez Sues in Calif. Over FDCPA Violation
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Pending
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Bid to Dismiss Woolgar Class Suit Pending
KITOV PHARMA: Class Suits Over Consensi(TM) Trials Ongoing
KITOV PHARMA: Continues to Defend Investors' Class Action Suit
KITOV PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in California Class Suit
KITOV PHARMA: Evidentiary Hearing in IPO Suit Set for June 23
KNAUF INSULATION: Appeals Ruling in Brancaccio Suit to 9th Cir.
LA RAZA PIZZA: Mitchell Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
LAND'S END: Delta Flight Attendants Class Suits Ongoing
LIBERTY MUTUAL: 401(k) Plan Members Allege Fund Mismanagement
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Pending
LIVE NATION: Faces Tezak Suit Over Refusal to Refund Tickets
LM ERICSSON: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Class Suit Granted
LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Afinowicz Class Suit
LYFT INC: Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision in Rogers Employment Suit
MDL 2185: 28 Actions Involving 115 Plaintiffs Underway
MDL 2709: Dollar General Still Faces Motor Oil Litigation
MDL 2801: Settlement Reached in Capacitors Antitrust Class Suit
MINNESOTA: Jackson Appeals Order in Civil Rights Suit to 8th Cir.
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Geiger FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Underway
ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Says Exposure to EasyPark Card Suit "Low"
ONCOSEC MEDICAL: Alpha Holdings Class Suit Dismissed
ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Kopanic & Cooper Suits Pending
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit Over Hamilton Merger Ongoing
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA May 3rd Amended Complaint Okayed
OSMOTICA PHARMA: Still Defends Consolidated Tello & Shumacher Suit
OTAY MESA, CA: Alvarez Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
PAMIER PIZZA: Acero Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
PETROBRAS: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Netherlands
PETROBRAS: Distribution of Lava Jato Settlement Funds Okayed
PINGTAN MARINE: Appeal in Zheng Class Suit Dismissed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Joyce Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
PRIMOHOAGIES FRANCHISING: Hozza Files Class Suit in D. New Jersey
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Allen Sues Over Lapsed Life Insurance Policies
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
READING INTERNATIONAL: Brown & Wagner Class Suits Ongoing
RECOVERY MANAGEMENT: Gibbs Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
REGIONAL FINANCE: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Olesinski
RENTGROW INC: Faces Poffenroth FCRA Class Suit in W.D. Washington
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Bids to Nix Klapper Suit Pending
SAKS INC: Beachum Sues Over Employee No-poach Policy
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ware Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Cir.
SIERRA INCOME: Anderson Merger Suit Underway
SIERRA INCOME: Appeal From Contingent Fee Award Sought
SIERRA INCOME: NY Counsels Reserve Rights to Seek Attorneys' Fees
SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Siefert Says
SPIROS PARTNERS: Appeals Decision in Bailey Suit to 5th Circuit
SXSW LLC: Bromley Sues in W.D. Texas Alleging Breach of Contract
SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
TELARIA INC: Faces Class Suits Over Rubicon Project Merger
TIAA FSB: Faces Chader Suit in New York Over Real Property Issues
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Windber Hospital Sues Over Denied Claims
TURNKEY VACATION: Cahill Sues in Texas Over Breach of Contract
TYPEFORM US: Alves Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
UNIT CORP: Appeal in Panola Independent School Suit Still Pending
UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Cockerell Oil Properties Class Suit
UNIT CORP: Court Certifies Class in Chieftain Royalty Suit
USPACK SERVICES: Court Stays Class Suit Pending Arbitration
VERVENT INC: Students Slam Illegal Student Debt Collections
VINNY'S OF CARROLL: Montoya Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Goetz Class Action
WAITR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Halley and Montgomery Suits
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Revised Judgment Favors Unit
WEOKIE FEDERAL: Garrett Sues Over Collection of NSF and OD Fees
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Schwoerer Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ZUMIEZ INC: Appeal in Herrera Class Action Ongoing
[^] Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
*********
2U INC: Chinn Securities Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Anne M. Chinn, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. 2U,
Inc., Christopher J. Paucek, and Catherine A. Graham, Respondents,
and Anders-Christian Moeller, Movant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07479 (Filed
Aug 9, 2019), was transferred from U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on April 23, 2020.
The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-01006-TDC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Theodore D. Chuang.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
2U, Inc., is an educational technology company that contracts with
non-profit colleges and universities to offer online degree
programs.[BN]
The Respondents are represented by:
James Christian Word, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh St. NW, Ste. 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
E-mail: christian.word@lw.com
ABC PHONES: Hardney Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RON HARDNEY, MANUEL
PANGASIRI, AND MICHELLE SALWAY v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA,
INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00076 (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards
Act collective action and permitting Court-supervised notice to:
"all similarly situated current and former hourly, non-exempt
classified Store Managers throughout the United States who
worked for ABC Phones, also known as Victra and formerly
known as A Wireless, who worked as an SM at any time during
the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint (May
20, 2016) to the date of the Court's Order granting this
motion."
ABC Phones was founded in 1996. The company's line of business
includes providing two-way radiotelephone communication services
such as cellular telephone services.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Camar R. Jones, Esq.
Shavitz Law Group, P.A.
951 Yamato Road., Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Adam A. Smith, Esq.
RIDDLE & BRANTLEY
601 N. Spence Avenue
Goldsboro, NC 27534
Telephone: (910) 455-5599
E-mail: AAS@justicecounts.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Angela Zambrano, Esq.
Margaret Hope Allan, Esq.
Natali Wyson, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000
Dallas, TX 75201
E-mail: Angela.zambrano@sidley.com
Margaret.allen@sidley.com
nwyson@sidley.com
- and -
Edward S. Schenk III, Esq.
WILLIAMS MULLEN
301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700
P.O. Box 1000 (27602)
Raleigh, NC 27601
E-mail: eschenk@williamsmullen.com
ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Majumdar Drops Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Abeona Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Sudipta Majumdar has
voluntarily dismissed the class action complaint filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On November 1, 2019, Sudipta Majumdar filed a putative securities
class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its current
and former executive officers, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's securities between May 31, 2018 and September 23,
2019.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, and operational and compliance policies, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint sought unspecified damages, fees, interest, and
costs.
On January 10, 2020, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit.
Abeona Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a
clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing gene and cell
therapies for life-threatening rare genetic diseases. The company
is based in New York, New York.
ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Accenture PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by consumers of
Marriott International, Inc. related to the data security incident
involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of
Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc.
On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc.
("Marriott") in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.
The complaint alleges negligence by us, and seeks monetary damages,
costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief, relating to a
data security incident involving unauthorized access to the
reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc.
("Starwood"), which was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016.
Since 2009, the company have provided certain IT infrastructure
outsourcing services to Starwood. The company believes the lawsuit
is without merit and we will vigorously defend it.
Accenture said, "We cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if
any, at this time."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Accenture PLC provides management and technology consulting
services and solutions. The Company delivers a range of specialized
capabilities and solutions to clients across all industries on a
worldwide basis. Accenture operates a network of businesses
provides consulting, technology, outsourcing, and alliances. The
company is based in Dublin, Ireland.
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Faulkner Settlement Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Akers Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the trial court
overseeing the cases, Faulkner v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No.
2:18-cv-10521 (D.N.J.) and Gleason v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No.
2:18-cv-10805 (D.N.J.), has granted final approval of the parties'
settlement and award of attorneys' fees, and reimbursement of
expenses.
On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Tim Faulkner filed a class action
complaint alleging securities violations against the company, John
J. Gormally and Gary M. Rauch, on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased publicly traded Akers securities from May
15, 2017 through June 5, 2018 (the "Faulkner Action").
The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants.
In particular, the complaint alleged that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose in the
company's first, second, and third quarter 2017 10-Qs and its 2017
10-K that: (1) Akers was improperly recognizing revenue for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017; and, (2) Akers had downplayed
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and
failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses.
On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff David Gleason filed a class action
complaint under the caption Gleason v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No.
2:18-cv-10805 (D.N.J.) based on the same allegations and causes of
action (the "Gleason Action").
On November 21, 2018, the Faulkner and Gleason Actions were
consolidated under the Faulkner Action docket.
The parties conducted a mediation on January 10, 2019, and agreed
to a settlement in principle disposing of the consolidated action
as to all Defendants, including the Individual Defendants. On March
8, 2019, the parties signed a settlement agreement, subject to
approval by the Court, whereby the company agreed to pay $2,250,000
in exchange for full releases and discharge of all claims against
it. On the same day, Plaintiffs Tim Faulkner and David Gleason
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and to
establish notice procedures.
On July 3, 2019, the Court granted the motion for preliminary
approval and scheduled a final settlement hearing for November 8,
2019. On or about July 24, 2019, the company's directors and
officers' insurer sent the settlement payment of $2,250,000 to the
settlement agent for the class.
On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the parties' request to
adjourn the final settlement hearing and scheduled a final
settlement hearing for December 20, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. On October
11, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed motions for final approval of the
proposed settlement and award of attorneys' fees, and reimbursement
of expenses.
On December 20, 2019, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement and award of attorneys' fees, and reimbursement of
expenses.
Akers Biosciences, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and supplies rapid screening and testing products
designed to deliver healthcare information to healthcare providers
and consumers in the United States, the People's Republic of China,
and internationally. Akers Biosciences, Inc. was founded in 1989
and is headquartered in Thorofare, New Jersey.
AKORN INC: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Data Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on March 13, 2020, that the court
overseeing the class action suit entitled, In re Akorn, Inc. Data
Integrity Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 18-cv-1713 (N.D. Ill.),
has entered a final order and judgment.
Akorn, Inc. and certain current and former Company officers and
directors are named defendants in a putative class action
litigation captioned In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 18-cv-1713 (N.D. Ill.), filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On August 9, 2019, the Company and the other defendants in the
Securities Class Action entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement to resolve the Securities Class Action and the claims of
the putative class.
On August 26, 2019, the Court, among other things, preliminarily
approved the settlement, subject to final approval at a settlement
hearing to be held at a later date.
On March 6, 2020, lead plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action
issued a press release via PR Newswire and instructed the
settlement claims administrator to update the settlement website to
notify the putative class that the Settlement Hearing had been
scheduled for March 13, 2020.
Between March 9, 2020 and March 12, 2020, entities affiliated with
two of the six institutional investors who had previously requested
exclusion from the settlement withdrew their requests for
exclusion.
At the Settlement Hearing on March 13, 2020, the Court granted the
lead plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the class
action settlement and plan of allocation, certified a plaintiffs'
class for settlement purposes, found the settlement consideration
fair, reasonable and adequate, and approved lead plaintiff’s
application for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses. Later on March 13, 2020, the Court entered a final order
and judgment.
Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products,
and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Prescription
Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Health. Akorn, Inc. was founded in
1971 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.
AMERICAN RENAL: Mediation Ongoing in Vandevar Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 16, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
mediation is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Ali
Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc., et
al., No. 19-09074-ES-MA.
On March 28, 2019 and April 19, 2019, putative shareholder class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of
its current and former executive officers.
Both complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form
8-K and certain prior filings.
The complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of the
individuals or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ARA's
securities from August 10, 2016 to March 27, 2019.
On July 3, 2019, the complaints were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed for the putative shareholder class action
complaint, captioned Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal
Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-09074-ES-MA (the "Vandevar
Action").
On November 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint against the Company and certain of its current
and former executive officers. The amended complaint asserts
federal securities laws claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 related to the matters
disclosed in the March 27 Form 8-K and certain prior filings.
On January 17, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On February 24, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
On February 26, 2020, the parties participated in a mediation.
The Company has continued to engage in discussions with the lead
plaintiff.
American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. is a national provider of
kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney
failure, also known as end stage renal disease, or ESRD. As of
March 31, 2017, the Company owned and operated 217 dialysis clinics
treating 14,735 patients in 25 states and the District of Columbia.
The Company's operating model is based on shared ownership of its
facilities with physicians, known as nephrologists, who specialize
in treating kidney-related diseases in the local market served by
the clinic. Each clinic is maintained as a separate joint venture,
or JV, in which the Company has a controlling interest and its
local nephrologist partners have noncontrolling interests.
AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Class Suit by Former IMS Staff Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. continues to defend litigation
initiated by a former employee of International Medication Systems,
Limited (IMS).
In its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 16, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2019, the Company said a status conference in the class action
suit was set for April 17, 2020.
On September 11, 2019, a former employee ("Plaintiff") initiated an
employment litigation against International Medication Systems,
Limited (IMS) et al. by filing a Complaint having individual and
class action claims for alleged violations of various California
labor laws pertaining to wage and hour, and other state laws
(collectively, "First Employment Litigation"). This Complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of California.
On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
Status Conference is set for April 17, 2020, because the Parties
have scheduled mediation on April 3, 2020.
On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
that alleges only Private Attorney General Act, Or PAGA, claims. On
February 24, 2020, IMS filed an Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint.
Additionally, on February 14, 2020, the Plaintiff filed another
Complaint against IMS in the Superior Court of California alleging
various individual claims relating to disability discrimination and
retaliation.
Amphastar said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend these
Employment Litigations."
Based in Rancho Cucamonga, California, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals
Inc. manufactures injectable and inhaled drugs and drug delivery
systems. The Company also offers contractual manufacturing
services, including labeling and packaging, cold storage, and
aseptic filling.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Continues to Defend SDNY Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a proposed class action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Company said, "On 21 June 2019, a proposed class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against us and three of our officers. The complaint
alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of AB InBev American Depositary Shares
between 1 March 2018 and 24 October 2018."
The plaintiff alleges that defendants misstated or omitted material
facts regarding, among other things, the company's financial
condition, its dividend policy and the effectiveness of its
disclosure controls and procedures.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.
An amended complaint filed on 12 December 2019 contained
substantially the same allegations, but reduced the number of
defendant officers to two.
Anheuser-Busch said, "We have not recorded any provision."
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is the world's largest brewer by volume
and one of the world's top five consumer products companies by
revenue. As a consumer-centric, sales-driven company, the Company
produces, markets, distributes and sells a diversified portfolio of
well over 500 beer and other malt beverage brands. These include
brands with significant international distribution, such as
Budweiser, Corona (except in the United States), Stella Artois,
Beck's, Leffe, Hoegaarden, Castle Lager (except in the United
States), Castle Lite (except in the United States), and Redd's
(except in the United States); and brands primarily distributed to
local markets such as Bud Light and Michelob Ultra in the United
States; Corona Light, Modelo Especial, Negra Modelo, Victoria and
Pacifico in Mexico; Skol, and Brahma and Antarctica in Brazil.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Suit Against Brewers Retail Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
against Brewers Retail Inc., has been concluded.
On 12 December 2014, a lawsuit was commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario ("LCBO"), Brewers Retail Inc. (known as "The Beer Store")
and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. (Molson Coors Canada, Sleeman
Breweries Ltd., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP and Labatt Brewing
Company Limited).
The lawsuit, which was brought in Canada in accordance with the
terms of the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, sought to obtain a
declaration that the LCBO and The Beer Store had entered into
agreements for allocating sales, territories or markets for the
supply of beer sold in Ontario since June 1, 2000, as well as a
declaration that The Beer Store shareholders had entered into
agreements for fixing prices.
The plaintiffs also sought damages not exceeding CAD $1.4 billion
(USD 1 billion), as well as punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages of CAD $5 million (USD 4 million).
In March 2018, the Ontario Supreme Court granted summary judgment
of the proceeding and dismissed the class claims. In April 2019,
the Appellate Court of Ontario denied the appeal of the decision.
The term for the plaintiffs to request for permission to appeal to
the Canada Supreme Court has expired and, therefore, the favorable
decision of the Ontario Supreme Court became final.
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is the world's largest brewer by volume
and one of the world's top five consumer products companies by
revenue. As a consumer-centric, sales-driven company, the Company
produces, markets, distributes and sells a diversified portfolio of
well over 500 beer and other malt beverage brands. These include
brands with significant international distribution, such as
Budweiser, Corona (except in the United States), Stella Artois,
Beck's, Leffe, Hoegaarden, Castle Lager (except in the United
States), Castle Lite (except in the United States), and Redd's
(except in the United States); and brands primarily distributed to
local markets such as Bud Light and Michelob Ultra in the United
States; Corona Light, Modelo Especial, Negra Modelo, Victoria and
Pacifico in Mexico; Skol, and Brahma and Antarctica in Brazil.
ARTARA THERAPEUTICS: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArTara Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the merger related
class action suits have been voluntarily dismissed.
On January 9, 2020, ArTara Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly Proteon
Therapeutics, Inc.), and privately-held ArTara Subsidiary, Inc.
("Private ArTara"), completed the merger and reorganization, or the
Merger, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of
Merger and Reorganization, dated September 23, 2019, or the Merger
Agreement, by and among the Company, Private ArTara and REM 1
Acquisition, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
("Merger Sub"), whereby Merger Sub merged with and into Private
ArTara, with Private ArTara surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Company. The Merger was structured as a reverse merger and
Private ArTara was determined to be the accounting acquirer based
on the terms of the Merger and other factors.
Between November 15 and December 23, 2019, four lawsuits were filed
in federal court against Proteon, ArTara, Merger Sub and the
individual members of the Proteon Board (captioned Patrick Plumley
v. Proteon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02143-UNA
(D. Del. filed 11/15/19)); Jeffrey Teow v. Proteon Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06745 (E.D.N.Y., filed 11/30/19);
Neil Lanteigne v. Proteon Therapeutics, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-12436 (D. Mass., filed 12/03/19); Stephen Wagner v. Proteon
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02343 (D. Del., filed
12/23/19).
The Plumley complaint is brought as a purported class action
lawsuit.
All four lawsuits alleged that the definitive proxy statement in
the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Proteon
on November 7, 2019 with the SEC in connection with the proposed
Merger (the "Proxy Statement") omitted material information with
respect to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement,
rendering it false and misleading in violation of Sections 14(a)
(and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The plaintiffs in each of the four lawsuits sought, among other
things, injunctive relief, rescission, declaratory relief and
unspecified monetary damages.
On December 31, 2019, Proteon filed an amendment to the Proxy
Statement on Form 8-K, which contained certain supplemental
disclosures intended to moot the plaintiffs' disclosure claims.
On January 9, 2019, Proteon held a special meeting of its
stockholders, at which the Company's stockholders approved the
Merger.
On January 27, 2020, plaintiff in the Lanteigne action voluntarily
dismissed his case. On February 3, 2020, plaintiff in the Plumley
action voluntarily dismissed his case. On February 7, 2020,
plaintiff in the Teow action voluntarily dismissed his case. On
February 10, 2020, plaintiff in the Wagner action dismissed his
case.
ArTara Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly Proteon Therapeutics, Inc.)
researches and develops biopharmaceutical products. The Company
produces pharmaceuticals to address the medical needs of patients
with renal and vascular diseases. Proteon Therapeutics conducts its
business in the United States. The company is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.
ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Scarpatetti Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Aurelio Scarpatetti, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling issued in their lawsuit styled Aurelio Scarpatetti, et
al. v. Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-04830-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to
certain prior disclosures of the Company about its business,
compliance, and operational policies and practices concerning the
sales and marketing of its opioid products and contends that the
conduct supporting the alleged violations affected the value of
Company common stock and is seeking damages and other relief.
In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead
plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor
Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August
6, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and
similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as
were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the
individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 9, 2018.
The appellate case is captioned as Aurelio Scarpatetti, et al. v.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-15707, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants AURELIO SCARPATETTI, MANUELE SCARPATETTI, DUY
VU and MARK MADRACK, Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
Adam McCall, Esq.
Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
Defendants-Appellees ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al., are
represented by:
Michael Bongiorno, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 937-7220
– and –
Michael Mugmon, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
One Front Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (628) 235-1006
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces Jacobowitz FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Shimon Jacobowitz, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Associated
Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01905 (E.D.N.Y., April 24,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Associated Credit Service, Inc., is a collection agency based in
Spokane, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
AVEO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hackel Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit initiated by David Hackel remains pending.
On February 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of its present and former officers, Michael
Bailey, Matthew Dallas, and Keith Ehrlich, in the Southern District
of New York for the District of New York, captioned David Hackel v.
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-01722-AT, which the
company refers to as the 2019 Class Action.
On April 12, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to
transfer the action to the District of Massachusetts (Case No.
1:19-cv-10783-JCB). On May 6, 2019, the court appointed Andrej
Hornak as lead plaintiff and approved Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel
and Andrews DeValerio LLP as liaison counsel. On July 24, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint also names Michael Needle as a defendant. The
amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders
who purchased our common stock between May 4, 2017 through January
31, 2019.
It generally alleges that the company and its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose and/or
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements about the
estimated dates by which the company would report the topline
results from the TIVO-3 trial, the preliminary overall survival
results from the TIVO-3 trial, the sufficiency of the overall
survival data from the TIVO-3 trial, the timing of the New Drug
Application (NDA) submission, and the risk of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA approval).
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs. On September 27, 2019, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.
On December 4, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and on January 15, 2020, the company filed a
reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
AVEO said, "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no
assurance that we will be successful in our defense or that
insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or
judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, we are
unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss at this time."
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops
and commercializes a portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology
and other areas of unmet medical need. The company was formerly
known as GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in March 2005. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was
incorporated in 2001 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
BA CREDIT: Damage Class Settlement in Interchange Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
BA Credit Card Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the order approving the
settlement in the Rule 23(b)(3) damages class related to the class
action entitled, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Anti-Trust Litigation, has been appealed.
In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class
actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation (Interchange), named Visa, MasterCard and several banks
and bank holding companies, including Bank of America Corporation
("BAC"), as defendants.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to fix the level of
default interchange rates and that certain rules of Visa and
MasterCard were unreasonable restraints of trade. Plaintiffs sought
compensatory and treble damages and injunctive relief.
On October 19, 2012, defendants reached a settlement with respect
to the putative class actions that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit rejected.
In 2018, defendants reached a settlement with the representatives
of the putative Rule 23(b)(3) damages class to contribute an
additional $900 million to the approximately $5.3 billion held in
escrow from the prior settlement.
BAC's additional contribution is not material to BAC.
The District Court approved that settlement with the putative Rule
23(b)(3) damages class on December 13, 2019 but that approval is
being appealed.
In addition, the putative Rule 23(b)(2) class action seeking
injunctive relief is pending, and a number of individual merchant
actions continue against the defendants, including one against BAC.
As a result of various loss-sharing agreements, however, BAC
remains liable for a portion of any settlement or judgment in
individual suits actions where it is not named as a defendant.
BA Credit Card Trust is a Delaware statutory trust structured to
allow maximum flexibility in issuance of BAseries notes. The trust
consists of receivables generated from Visa, MasterCard and
American Express revolving credit card accounts.
BA CREDIT: Filer's Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
BA Credit Card Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the putative class action
suit entitled, Filer et al. v. BA Credit Card Funding, LLC et al.
(No. 19-CV-1507), has been voluntarily dismissed.
In November 2019, a lawsuit (Filer et al. v. BA Credit Card
Funding, LLC et al. (No. 19-CV-1507 (W.D.N.Y. November 14, 2019))
was filed against BA Credit Card Funding, LLC ("Funding"), BA
Credit Card Trust and, by and through The Bank of New York Mellon
as its trustee, BA Master Credit Card Trust II.
Each of Funding and BA Credit Card Trust is an affiliate of Bank of
America N.A. (BANA), and BA Master Credit Card Trust II is a common
law trust established by BANA. Each of Funding, BA Master Credit
Card Trust II, and BA Credit Card Trust has acted as a special
purpose entity in the BA Credit Card Trust securitization issuance
platform sponsored by BANA.
The putative class action was brought by certain New York residents
with credit card accounts originated by BANA (which is not named as
a defendant), who allege that BANA securitized their credit card
receivables in BA Master Credit Card Trust II.
The complaint contends that the defendants are required to comply
with New York state's usury law under the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit decision in Madden v. Midland
Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
2505 (June 27, 2016) because they are non-bank entities that are
not entitled to the benefits of federal preemption applicable to
loans made by BANA.
The Filer action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
without prejudice on December 17, 2019 after plaintiffs' counsel
was provided evidence that the named plaintiffs lack standing to
pursue that action.
BA Credit Card Trust is a Delaware statutory trust structured to
allow maximum flexibility in issuance of BAseries notes. The trust
consists of receivables generated from Visa, MasterCard and
American Express revolving credit card accounts.
BARRICK GOLD: Matney Sues Plan Fiduciaries for Breach of Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Matney and Paul Watts, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BARRICK GOLD OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BARRICK GOLD OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., BARRICK
U.S. SUBSIDIARIES BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
2:20-cv-00275-TC (D. Utah, April 24, 2020), is brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 alleging that the
Defendants breached their duties as fiduciaries of the Barrick
Retirement Plan.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they
owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants
of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost;
and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the
availability of identical or similar investment options with lower
costs and/or better performance histories.
At all times during the Class Period (April 24, 2014, through the
date of judgment), the Plan had at least half a billion dollars in
assets under management. At the end of 2017 and 2018, the Plan had
over $619 million and $560 million, respectively, in assets under
management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's
fiduciaries. The Plan's assets under management qualify it as a
large plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among
the largest plans in the United States. As a large plan, the Plan
had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses
that were charged against participants' investments.
The Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses
or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment
option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent,
according to the complaint. To make matters worse, the Defendants
failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the
mutual funds within the Plan, and failed to consider collective
trusts, commingled accounts, or separate accounts as alternatives
to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower fees.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the
ERISA, says the complaint. Their actions were contrary to actions
of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants
millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert
claims against the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties of
loyalty and prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries.
The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options
offered by the Plan.
Barrick is the Plan sponsor with a principal place of business in
Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David K. Isom, Esq.
ISOM LAW FIRM PLLC
299 South Main Street, Suite 1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 209-7400
Email: david@isomlawfirm.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Phone: (717) 233-4101
Fax (717) 233-4103
Email: donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Phone: (610) 890-0200
Fax (717) 233-4103
Email: markg@capozziadler.com
BAUMGART RESTAURANT: Ding Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GUI HUA DING, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BAUMGART
RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe; and BAUMGART'S NEXT DOOR,
INC. d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe; GOU-FU WANG a/k/a Sam Wang, STEVE WU,
MARSHA WU, and THEAN CHOO CHONG, Case No. 2:18-cv-10358-JMV-SCM
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an order:
1. granting collective action status under the Fair Labor
Standards Act;
2. directing the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
containing first and last name, last known address with
apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work
location, dates of employment and position of:
"all current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
employees employed at any time from June 10, 2015 to the
present within 21 days of the entry of the order";
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language, via mail, email, text message, or
social media messages or hats, to all members of the
putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete
and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from the
Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from
existing employment records;
4. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice in all relevant languages , in a conspicuous and
unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
workplace;
5. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
Court, at Defendants' expense by social media and by
publication in newspaper should the Defendants fail to
furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the
Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding
address to be published in English, and Chinese languages;
6. directing equitable tolling on the statute of limitation
on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration
of the Opt-in Period;
7. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
8. appointing the Plaintiff Qui Hua Ding as class
representative;
9. appointing Troy Law, PLLC as class counsel; and
10. permitting the Plaintiff to circulate a class action
notice in relevant languages in newspaper for five
consecutive weeks.
The Defendants operate restaurant business.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class are:
Aaron B Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
BAXTER INT'L: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs in Silverman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court has
appointed Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company and Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in
the class action entitled, Ethan E. Silverman et al. v. Baxter
International Inc. et al.
In November 2019, the company and certain of its officers were
named in a class action complaint captioned Ethan E. Silverman et
al. v. Baxter International Inc. et al. that was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiff, who allegedly purchased shares of the company's
common stock during the specified class period, filed this putative
class action on behalf of himself and shareholders who acquired
Baxter common stock between February 21, 2019 and October 23, 2019.
The plaintiff alleges that the company and certain officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material
facts relating to certain intra-company transactions undertaken for
the purpose of generating foreign exchange gains or avoiding
foreign exchange losses, as well as our internal controls over
financial reporting.
On January 29, 2020, the Court appointed Varma Mutual Pension
Insurance Company and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case.
In addition, the company received a stockholder request for
inspection of its books and records in connection with the
announcement made in its Form 8-K on October 24, 2019 that the
company had commenced an internal investigation into certain
intra-company transactions that impacted our previously reported
non-operating foreign exchange gains and losses.
Baxter said, "As initially disclosed on October 24, 2019, we also
voluntarily advised the staff of the SEC of our previously
disclosed internal investigation and we are continuing to cooperate
with the staff of the SEC."
Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.
BELLISSIMO DISTRIBUTION: Alonso Sues Over Storage of Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ALONSO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. BELLISSIMO DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Case
No. 2020L000417 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., April 13, 2020), accuses
the Defendant of violating the Biometric Information Privacy Act by
collecting, storing and using the unique biometric fingerprint
identifiers, or personal identifying information derived from those
identifiers, without complying with the BIPA requirements.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant required him and other
workers to use a biometric time clock system to record their time
worked. The Defendant required them to scan their fingerprints in
the Defendant's biometric time clock each time they started and
finished working a shift. Unlike an employee identification number
or employee identification card, fingerprints are unique and
permanent identifiers.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver out of
its Bartlett, Illinois facility from December 2018 to May 2019.
The Defendant is a food distribution company that operates under
the name Greco and Sons.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
zflowerree@flsalaw.com
- and -
David Fish, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
docketing@fishlawfirm.com
BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Tran Putative Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Meat, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative securities class action suit initiated by Larry
Tran.
On January 30, 2020, Larry Tran, a purported shareholder of Beyond
Meat, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
against Beyond Meat and two of its executive officers, its
President and CEO, Ethan Brown, and its Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, Mark Nelson.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and is premised on allegedly false or misleading
statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, related
to our public disclosures regarding our ongoing litigation with Don
Lee Farms during the proposed class period of May 2, 2019 to
January 27, 2020.
Beyond Meat said, "We believe the claims are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted."
Beyond Meat, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is one of the fastest
growing food companies in the United States, offering a portfolio
of revolutionary plant-based meats. The company is based in El
Segundo, California.
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Massaro Class Suit Over Spam Text
----------------------------------------------------
Beyond Meat, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is facing a
putative class action initiated by Nazrin Massaro.
On March 18, 2020, Nazrin Massaro filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against Beyond Meat and People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. ("PETA").
The lawsuit asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and alleges that PETA sent unsolicited text message
advertisements promoting the company's products to the putative
class members in violation of consumers' privacy rights.
The lawsuit further alleges that PETA sent the text messages at the
direction, and/or under the control, of Beyond Meat.
The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages on behalf of
herself and the putative class members.
Beyond Meat said, "We believe the claims are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted."
Beyond Meat, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is one of the fastest
growing food companies in the United States, offering a portfolio
of revolutionary plant-based meats. The company is based in El
Segundo, California.
BIG GEYSER: Misrepresents Carbonated Water Products, Mangone Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Mangone, Jodi Spear, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Big Geyser Inc., Case No.
7:20-cv-03267 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2020), seeks damages under
consumer protection laws arising from the Defendant's alleged
misleading representations on its carbonated water purporting to be
flavored with fruit juice ingredients under the Hal's New York
brand.
The relevant representations include "Hal's New York," "Seltzer
Water," "Naturally Refreshing," the variety--lemon, lime, etc. and
a picture of the purported characterizing ingredient, i.e., a wedge
of lemon or lime. The Products' labeling makes direct
representations with respect to their primary recognizable flavors,
by word (lemon, lime), vignette (lemon and lime wedges) and the
statement "Naturally Refreshing," such that lemon and lime are
considered the characterizing flavors and the Products will be
expected to contain small amounts of lemon and lime juice.
However, according to the complaint, the Products do not contain
such characterizing fruit juice ingredients but rather contains
"natural flavor derived from such ingredient" as shown on their
ingredient lists. The Products are misleading because they are
labeled differently from other products of identical composition.
The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Products is designed
to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and
consumers. The Defendant sold more of the Products and at higher
prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers like
the Plaintiffs.
Had the Plaintiffs and class members known the truth, they would
not have bought the Products or would have paid less for them, says
the complaint. As a result of the false and misleading labeling,
the Products are sold at a premium price, approximately no less
than $1.99 for bottles of 20 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other
similar products represented in a non-misleading way.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption.
Big Geyser Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells carbonated water purporting to be flavored with fruit juice
ingredients, under the Hal's New York brand.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BOX INC: Calif. Securities Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Box, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that on June 6, 2019, a
purported securities class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California naming Box and
certain of its officers and directors as defendants.
The action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on December
16, 2019.
Box, Inc. develops Internet applications software. The Company
operates a content sharing platform that enables users to share,
access, and manage content in the cloud, as well as provides mobile
access, file storage, and online collaboration solutions. Box
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Redwood,
California.
BROOKLINE, MA: Alston Appeals Decision in Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gerald Alston filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Alston v. Town of Brookline, et al., Case No.
15-13987-GAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the federal
lawsuit alleges racism and discrimination in the town of Brookline,
Massachusetts. Two Brookline police officers have since filed
complaints with the Massachusetts Commission of Discrimination and
five other town employees are plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
The third amended complaint alleges that the Town's policy,
practice, and custom of protecting and encouraging acts of racial
discrimination and disparate treatment (the custom) was the driving
force behind the racially-motivated wrongs inflicted on Alston.
The appellate case is captioned as Alston v. Town of Brookline et
al., Case No. 20-1434, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Gerald Alston, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Brooks A. Ames, Esq.
BROOKLINE JUSTICE LEAGUE, INC.
1309 Beacon Street, 3rd Floor
Brookline, MA 02446
Telephone: (617) 763-5526
Email: brooksames1@gmail.com
Defendants-Respondents Town of Brookline, et al., are represented
by:
Douglas I. Louison, Esq.
Joseph A. Padolsky, Esq.
LOUISON, COSTELLO, CONDON & PFAFF, LLP
101 Summer Street, Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-0305
Facsimile: (617) 439-0325
Email: dlouison@lccplaw.com
jpadolsky@lccplaw.com
– and -
Patricia Correa, Esq.
OFFICE OF TOWN COUNSEL
333 Washington Street
Brookline, MA 02445
Telephone: (617) 730-2190
Email: pcorrea@brooklinema.gov
BROOKLINE, MA: Ames Appeals Order in Alston Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brooks Averell Ames filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Alston v. Town of Brookline, et al., Case
No. 15-13987-GAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the federal
lawsuit alleges racism and discrimination in the town of Brookline,
Massachusetts. Two Brookline police officers have since filed
complaints with the Massachusetts Commission of Discrimination and
five other town employees are plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
The appellate case is captioned as Ames v. Town of Brookline, MA,
et al., Case No. 20-1435, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs GERALD ALSTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., and Plaintiff-Appellant BROOKS AVERELL
AMES are represented by:
Brooks Averell Ames, Esq.
BROOKLINE JUSTICE LEAGUE INC.
1309 Beacon St., #314
Brookline, MA 02446
Telephone: (617) 763-5526
Defendants-Appellees TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MA, et al., are represented
by:
Patricia Correa, Esq.
TOWN OF BROOKLINE
333 Washington St., 6th Flr.
Brookline, MA 02445-0000
Telephone: (617) 730-2190
– and –
Douglas I. Louison, Esq.
Joseph Adam Padolsky, Esq.
LOUISON COSTELLO CONDON & PFAFF LLP
101 Summer St., 4th Flr.
Boston, MA 02110-0000
Telephone: (617) 439-0305
CAESARSTONE LTD: Settlement in Israel Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Caesarstone Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement agreement
in the class action before the Central District Court in Israel
remains subject to court approval.
A lawsuit by a single plaintiff and a motion for its class
certification were filed against the company in April 2014 in the
Central District Court in Israel mainly claiming the company did
not provide adequate warnings with respect to its products and that
by the company's conduct it violated the plaintiff's autonomy.
The plaintiff alleged that, if the lawsuit is recognized as a class
action, the claim against the company is estimated to be NIS 216
million (approximately $56 million), calculated by claiming damages
of NIS 18,000 ($4,668) for each individual who worked in
fabrication workshops in Israel in fabrication or administrative
roles and who have been exposed to dust generated by the
fabrication of our products.
The plaintiff claimed that there are 12,000 such individuals who
worked at 400 fabrication workshops in Israel, each of which
employed 10 fabricators and five administrative persons, with one
rotation during the relevant period.
In addition, such claim includes an unstated sum in compensation
for special and general damages, such as medical disability,
functional disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses,
medical and nursing assistance, which will require proof and
quantification for each injured person in the purported class
action.
The plaintiff was seeking, among other things, to compel the
company to notify the alleged group (and potential members of the
group) and each individual about the risks, recommending that they
undertake a medical examination and assert their rights.
On January 4, 2018, the company and the plaintiff submitted to the
Israeli District Court a settlement agreement. If the settlement
agreement is approved by the Court, the claim will be dismissed and
the company will make payments on a one-time basis, without any
admission of liability, in an aggregate amount of approximately NIS
9.0 million (approximately $2.6 million) to fund certain safety
related expenses at fabrication facilities in Israel, as well as
plaintiff’s compensation and legal expenses.
Caesarstone said, "As of the date of this report, the settlement
agreement remains subject to the approval of the Court. The Israeli
State Attorney General had notified the Court of its objection to
the proposed settlement. We expect the Court will issue its ruling
during the first half of 2020."
Caesarstone Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells engineered quartz surfaces under the Caesarstone brand in the
United States, Australia, Canada, Israel, Europe, and
internationally. Its engineered quartz slabs are used as
countertops in residential kitchens, as well as serve the
renovation and remodeling market. The Company's products are also
used in other applications, such as vanity tops, wall panels, back
splashes, floor tiles, stairs, and other interior surfaces that are
used in various residential and non-residential applications. It
sells its products directly to fabricators, sub-distributors, and
resellers; and indirectly through a network of independent
distributors. The Company was formerly known as Caesarstone Sdot
Yam Ltd. and changed its name to Caesarstone Ltd. in June 2016.
Caesarstone Ltd. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in MP
Menashe, Israel.
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Williams Sues Over Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Priscilla Williams, Kimberly Napier, Penny Wolfe and Sandy Wizzard,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY d/b/a ATRIUM HEALTH, INC.
f/k/a Carolinas HealthCare System, Case No. 3:20-cv-00242
(W.D.N.C., April 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendants
alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on age,
in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Atrium in the Pediatric Cancer Unit
at Atrium Health Levine Children's Hospital working in the capacity
of Nurses, Registered Nurses or Healthcare Technicians.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for decades
without incident until Kerry Bratcher became the Nurse Manager on
the Unit. Shortly after her arrival in early 2017, she informed
several individuals that she wanted to get rid of older and African
American employees on the Unit. Ms. Bratcher began targeting older,
African American employees, and telling others they could "thank
her" when older, African Americans were terminated or forced out.
Within the past six months, Ms. Bratcher caused another African
American nurse to quit due to the hostile work environment created
by her, the Plaintiffs aver. In the past few months in 2020,
Atrium, through Ms. Bratcher, terminated yet another older
Healthcare Technician over age 40, who was purportedly terminated
for "performance" reasons after Bratcher wrote her up numerous
times for false reasons, says the complaint.
The Defendants control and/or own and/or operate senior living
centers, with at least five current sites throughout North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
GESSNERLAW, PLLC
602 East Morehead Street
G.G. Galloway House
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 234-7442
Fax: (980) 206-0286
Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., remains
pending.
In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. ("WHBM") was named as
a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia ("District Court").
The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law,
willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or
debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts.
The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000
for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages.
WHBM denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes
the case is without merit. On February 12, 2018, the District Court
issued an order certifying the class.
On April 9, 2018, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an order
granting WHBM's earlier 2016 request to appeal, to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eleventh Circuit"), the District Court's
ruling that the plaintiff has standing to maintain the lawsuit. On
April 19, 2018, WHBM filed a petition for review in the Eleventh
Circuit. In the meantime, the District Court stayed all further
proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the appeal in the
Eleventh Circuit.
On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff and WHBM notified the Eleventh
Circuit that the plaintiff and WHBM had reached a class settlement
on all claims and therefore voluntarily dismissed WHBM's appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit.
On August 2, 2018, the District Court reopened the case for
purposes of reviewing/approving the proposed settlement.
On October 22, 2018, the plaintiff filed the settlement papers with
the District Court, along with a motion to stay the District
Court's consideration of the settlement pending the Eleventh
Circuit's final disposition of Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier,
Inc., in which the Eleventh Circuit held, in an opinion issued
October 3, 2018 and supplemented on April 22, 2019, that the
display of the first six and last four digits of a credit or debit
card number on a customer's receipt given at the point of sale
establishes a "concrete injury" sufficient to confer Article III
standing, enabling the customer to maintain a lawsuit.
The District Court granted the motion to stay on November 15, 2018.
A petition for rehearing on the October 2018 opinion was filed in
the Muransky case on October 24, 2018. In October 2019, the
Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing and, on February 25, 2020, heard
oral argument in the en banc appeal.
The Muransky opinion, if not altered on the petition for rehearing,
would bind the District Court in the Altman case and likely
establish that the plaintiff has standing to maintain her lawsuit
against WHBM.
In such event, the stay will be lifted and the proposed settlement
will be reviewed by the District Court. If the Eleventh Circuit
holds that there is not standing in the Muransky case, the parties
have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to the Superior Court
for Cobb County, Georgia for approval. The proposed settlement
would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.
The company said, "However, no assurance can be given that the
proposed settlement will be approved. If the proposed settlement is
rejected and the case were to proceed as a class action and WHBM
were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then the
ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results
of operations."
Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also
sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS,
Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida.
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Final Hearing on Rael Settlement Set for July 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the settlement in the
Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., is subject to the court's final
approval and the final fairness hearing is scheduled for July 31,
2020.
The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a
purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California.
In the initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff
alleged that the Company falsely advertised discount prices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising
Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding
allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws.
In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law
claims.
The plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent a class
of California purchasers and seeks, among other items, injunctive
relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in
December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in
principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement
agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis
with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at
The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through the date of
preliminary approval by the court of the settlement.
The settlement is subject to court approval and provides for
merchandise vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as
well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims
administration expenses.
The court stayed the matter, pending an appellate court ruling in
another lawsuit to which the Company is not a party, from April 2,
2018 through June 17, 2019.
On January 28, 2020, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement.
The settlement is also subject to the court's final approval and
the final fairness hearing is scheduled for July 31, 2020.
The settlement, if finally approved by the court, will result in
the dismissal of all claims through the date of the court’s
preliminary approval of the settlement.
The Children's Place said, "However, if the settlement is
ultimately rejected by the court, the parties will likely return to
litigation, and in such event, no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter. In connection with the proposed
settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0 million in its
consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of Fiscal
2017."
The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty
apparel retailer. The company operates through two segments, The
Children's Place U.S. and The Children's Place International. The
company was formerly known as The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc. and changed its name to The Children's Place, Inc. in June
2014. The Children's Place, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.
CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Gottlieb Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit initiated by Mark Gottlieb, is
pending.
On August 14, 2019, Mark Gottlieb, a Company stockholder, filed a
purported class action proceeding against Jonathan Duskin; Seth
Johnson; Keri Jones; Kent Kleeberger; William Sharpe, III; Joel
Waller and Laura Weil (the "Named Directors"), B. Riley FBR, Inc.
and B. Riley Financial Inc., in the Court of Chancery in the State
of Delaware, on behalf of himself and all stockholders who held
shares as of December 20, 2018.
The lawsuit alleges that the Named Directors breached their duty of
loyalty in connection with the Company's rejection in December of
2018, of an unsolicited bid to acquire the Company.
The lawsuit further alleges that the B. Riley firms aided and
abetted the asserted breach of the duty of loyalty by the Named
Directors.
The Company believes the Complaint is without merit.
The Named Directors, and the Company on their behalf, together with
the B. Riley firms, intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
On September 18, 2019, the Director Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
The motion has been briefed by Plaintiff and the Defendants and
oral argument on the motion was held before the Court of Chancery
on February 13, 2020.
Christopher & Banks Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
as a specialty retailer of private-brand women's apparel and
accessories in the United States. It was formerly known as Braun's
Fashions Corporation and changed its name to Christopher & Banks
Corporation in July 2000. The Company was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.
CLUBCORP USA: Cuenco Sues in California Over Fraud-Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ClubCorp USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Jeffrey Cuenco, on behalf of himself, and all
other similarly situated v. ClubCorp USA, Inc., Case No.
3:20-cv-00774-BEN-AHG (S.D. Cal., April 23, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.
ClubCorp USA, Inc., provides sports and recreational services. The
Company owns and operates golf and country clubs, business, sports,
and alumni clubs, as well as offers golf resorts, wedding and
private management, and tournament hosting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Student A Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Student A, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Case No. 1:20-cv-03208 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2020), is brought
to seek refunds of the tuition and fees the Plaintiff and other
members of the class are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with
other damages.
The Plaintiff has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020
semester either out of pocket or by utilizing student loan
financing. The case arises as a result of the Defendant's decision
to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all
classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel
Coronavirus Disease ("COVID-19").
While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff from recognizing the benefits of in-person instruction,
housing, meals, access to campus facilities, student activities,
and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had
already paid fees and tuition, according to the complaint.
The Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendant is
no longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary
reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and
members of the Class for their loss, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is currently enrolled as a full-time student at the
Defendant's University.
Defendant Board of Trustees of Columbia University in the City of
New York is an institution of higher learning located in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Toptani, Esq.
TOPTANI LAW PLLC
375 Pearl Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (212) 699-8930
Email: edward@toptanilaw.com
- and -
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Travis Ito-Stone Securities Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
DBV Technologies S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Travis Ito-Stone v. DBV
Technologies, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00525.
A class action complaint was filed on January 15, 2019, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
entitled Travis Ito-Stone v. DBV Technologies, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00525.
The complaint alleges that the Company and its former Chief
Executive Officer, its current Chief Executive Officer, its former
Deputy Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Business
Officer violated certain federal securities laws, specifically
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between February 14, 2018
and December 19, 2018.
The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit and intend to defend the case
vigorously.
DBV Technologies said, "However, whether or not the plaintiff's
claims are successful, this type of litigation is often expensive
and diverts management's attention and resources, which could
adversely affect the operation of the Company's business. If the
Company is ultimately required to pay significant defense costs,
damages or settlement amounts, such payments could adversely affect
its operations.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
DBV Technologies S.A., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
engages in the research and development of epicutaneous
immunotherapy products. The Company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Montrouge, France.
DEUTSCHE BANK: Canadian Precious Metal Suits Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Canadian
class action proceedings in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec
concerning gold and silver have been dismissed against the
company.
Deutsche Bank was a defendant in Canadian class action proceedings
in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec concerning gold and silver.
Each of the proceedings seeks damages for alleged violations of the
Canadian Competition Act and other causes of action.
Deutsche Bank reached agreements to settle these actions which were
approved by the Ontario court on May 29, 2019 and the Quebec court
on June 17, 2019, and the actions have been dismissed against
Deutsche Bank.
The amounts are not material to the Bank.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
DEUTSCHE BANK: Continues to Defend FX Related Class Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend two class actions suits brought in the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec, related to Foreign Exchange (FX).
Deutsche Bank has been named as a defendant in two Canadian class
proceedings brought in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Filed on September 10, 2015, these class actions assert factual
allegations similar to those made in the consolidated action in the
United States and seek damages pursuant to the Canadian Competition
Act as well as other causes of action.
Plaintiffs in the Ontario action have moved for class
certification. Deutsche Bank has opposed and a hearing on the class
certification motion was held during the week of February 24,
2020.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Narrows Bill Swap Rate Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court
overseeing the class action related to Bill Swap Rate Claims,
partially granted the motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, with certain claims against Deutsche Bank remaining.
On August 16, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Deutsche Bank and other defendants, bringing claims based on
alleged collusion and manipulation in connection with the
Australian Bank Bill Swap Rate ("BBSW") on behalf of persons and
entities that engaged in US-based transactions in BBSW-linked
financial instruments from 2003 through the date on which the
effects of the alleged unlawful conduct ceased.
The complaint alleged that the defendants, among other things,
engaged in money market transactions intended to influence the BBSW
fixing, made false BBSW submissions, and used their control over
BBSW rules to further the alleged misconduct.
An amended complaint was filed on December 16, 2016. On November
26, 2018, the court partially granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing all claims against
Deutsche Bank. On April 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss.
On February 13, 2020, the court partially granted the motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, with certain claims against
Deutsche Bank remaining.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
DEUTSCHE BANK: June 11 Final Hearing on TruPS Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court set the
final approval hearing for June 11, 2020 in the class action suit
related to certain trust preferred securities issued by the
company.
Deutsche Bank and certain of its affiliates and former officers are
the subject of a consolidated putative class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
asserting claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of
persons who purchased certain trust preferred securities issued by
Deutsche Bank and its affiliates between October 2006 and May 2008.
In a series of opinions, the court dismissed all claims as to four
of the six offerings at issue, but allowed certain alleged
omissions claims relating to the November 2007 and February 2008
offerings to proceed.
The district court limited claims relating to the two offerings
remaining in the case to alleged failures (i) to disclose "any
known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant
reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable
impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing
operations" and (ii) to disclose "the most significant factors that
make the offering speculative or risky" pursuant to Items 303 and
503 of Regulation S-K.
Defendants have served Answers denying all wrongdoing. On October
2, 2018, the district court certified a plaintiff class as to both
offerings. All discovery was completed and defendants moved for
summary judgment.
On September 24, 2019, plaintiffs informed the court that the
parties have reached a settlement agreement in principle to resolve
the litigation, subject to court approval and final documentation.
As a result, the court stayed all proceedings pending settlement.
On November 15, 2019, the settlement agreement was executed and
plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement.
On February 27, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and set the final approval hearing for June 11, 2020.
The settlement amount is already fully reflected in existing
litigation provisions.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
DEUTSCHE BANK: June 9 Final Hearing on US Agency Bonds Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court
overseeing the class action suit related to U.S. Agency bonds has
scheduled a final fairness hearing for June 9, 2020.
Deutsche Bank was named as a defendant in several putative class
action complaints filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of antitrust law and
common law related to alleged manipulation of the secondary trading
market for U.S. Agency bonds; on September 3, 2019, the court
denied a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Deutsche Bank has reached an agreement to settle the class actions
for the amount of US$ 15 million, which amount was already fully
reflected in existing litigation reserves and no additional
provision was taken for this settlement amount. The court granted
preliminary approval over the settlement on October 29, 2019,
supported by an opinion issued November 8, 2019.
The settlement remains subject to final court approval, and the
court has scheduled a final fairness hearing for June 9, 2020.
As of December 16, 2019, all other defendants also reached
settlements with the class action plaintiffs, which if approved by
the court will result in a total of US$ 386.5 million paid to the
settlement class.
A separate action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana on September 23, 2019, which was
dismissed with prejudice as to Deutsche Bank by stipulation of the
parties on October 30, 2019.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
DEUTSCHE BANK: S.D.N.Y. Court Dismisses Shareholders' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York has granted the motion
to dismiss with prejudice as to all defendants and entered judgment
dismissing the lawsuit.
Deutsche Bank and certain of its current and former officers and
management board members are the subject of a purported class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Deutsche Bank on
a United States exchange or pursuant to other transactions within
the United States between March 20, 2017 and May 30, 2018.
Plaintiffs alleged that Deutsche Bank's SEC Annual Reports on Form
20-F for the years 2016 and 2017 and its quarterly interim reports
on Form 6-K for calendar 2017 contained materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business, operational and
compliance policies and internal control environment.
On January 25, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint. Deutsche Bank moved to dismiss the action.
On September 30, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice as to all defendants and entered judgment dismissing the
lawsuit.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement in Precious Metal Suits Awaits Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has
reached agreements to settle the Gold action for US$60 million and
the Silver action for US$38 million, and both deals remain subject
to final court approval.
Deutsche Bank is a defendant in two consolidated class action
lawsuits pending in the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The suits allege violations of US antitrust law, the US Commodity
Exchange Act and related state law arising out of the alleged
manipulation of gold and silver prices through participation in the
Gold and Silver Fixes.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
DI LOGISTICS: Faces Smith Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Myrica Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DI LOGISTICS, LLC, a limited-liability corporation; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03734 (C.D. Cal., April 23,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code, Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Business
and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff was not properly paid for all hours worked, including
overtime, according to the complaint. Specifically, because of
issues with the Defendant's timekeeping practices, the Plaintiff
was routinely credited for less hours than they actually worked.
Additionally, when required to travel to different facilities, the
Plaintiff was often not paid for all of the time spent traveling
between those facilities. The Defendant failed to include these
non-discretionary bonuses, commissions, and other items of
compensation when calculating the Plaintiff and its other
non-exempt California employees' regular rate of pay for purposes
of overtime, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in August 2018.
DI Logistics, LLC, is a California limited-liability corporation,
which does business in California and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
William J. Gorham, Esq.
Nicholas K. Scardigli, Esq.
Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq.
Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, CA 95207-8253
Phone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
Email: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
wgorham@mayallaw.com
nscardigli@mayallaw.com
jbaysinger@mayallaw.com
vjkozina@mayallaw.com
DOLGEN NEW YORK: Medina Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Medina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOLGEN NEW YORK LLC, DOLGENCORP OF TEXAS, INC., and
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-03260 (S.D.N.Y., April
24, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The lawsuit is brought to recover overtime compensation and other
damages, as well as compensation for all store employees in New
York, who were paid via payroll debit cards, (the "New York Pay
Card Class"), who work or have worked for the Defendants.
The Defendants have classified the Plaintiff and all other Managers
as overtime exempt and failed to provide them with any overtime
premium wages for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendants have
compensated the Plaintiff and all other members of the New York Pay
Card Class via a payroll debit card.
According to the complaint, despite compensating their employees
via a payroll debit card, the Defendants failed to get informed
written consent from the Plaintiff and the New York Pay Card Class;
failed to provide Plaintiff and the New York Pay Card Class one or
more automatic teller machines ("ATM") that could be used to
withdraw cash with the payroll debit card without incurring a fee;
charged fees for cashback use of the payroll debit cards; and
included expiration dates on the payroll debit cards issued to the
Plaintiff and the New York Pay Card Class. In this regard, the
Defendants failed to satisfy the requirements necessary under New
York law to properly pay the Plaintiff and the New York Pay Card
Class via a payroll debit card.
Plaintiff Medina was employed by Dollar General as a Manager and
member of the New York Pay Card Class from October 2017 through
January 17, 2020.
The Defendants sell discounted retail items at their stores
throughout the United States, including stores throughout the
Southern District of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Hunter G Benharris, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 300-0375
DOLLAR TREE: Agreement in Principle Reached in Former Employee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that an agreement in principle
has been reached in the class action suit initiated by a former
employee of the company in California.
In August 2018, a former employee brought suit in California state
court as a class action and as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative suit alleging the Company failed to provide
all non-exempt California store employees with compliant rest and
meal breaks, accrued vacation, accurate wage statements and final
pay upon termination of employment.
The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter which will be submitted to the court for approval.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.
DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager Class Suit Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the class action suit
initiated by a former store manager of the company in the
California has been resolved.
In 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in California
federal court alleging, among other things, that the Company failed
to make wage statements readily available to employees who did not
receive paper checks.
In 2017, a jury found in favor of the Company.
In 2019, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury
verdict.
In July 2019, the plaintiff filed a petition with the Supreme Court
of the United States seeking a review of the decision.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and the case is now
resolved.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.
DOLLAR TREE: Settlement Reached in Distribution Employee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the company has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the class action suit initiated by
a distribution center employee in California.
In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay.
The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter which will be submitted to the court for approval.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.
ELKTON FCI: Fails to Contain COVID-19 Outbreak, Wilson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG WILSON, ERIC BELLAMY, KENDAL NELSON, and MAXIMINO NIEVES, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. MARK WILLIAMS,
warden of Elkton Federal Correctional Institutions; and MICHAEL
CARVAJAL, Federal Bureau of Prisons Director, in their official
capacities, Case No. 4:20-cv-00794-JG (N.D. Ohio, April 13, 2020),
is a putative class action for relief from the Plaintiffs'
detention that violates Eighth Amendment rights under the U.S.
Constitution.
According to the complaint, Elkton has neither the capacity nor the
ability to comply with public health guidelines to manage the
outbreak of COVID-19 currently ravaging the facility and absent
requested relief measures, cannot provide for the safety of the
Class. The Respondents' actions and inactions result in the
confinement of members of the Class in a prison where the
Respondents have not followed and seem incapable of following
public health guidance regarding social distancing and personal
hygiene, and treating or preventing COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths,
all of which violates Petitioners' rights to be free from
deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm--that
is, to receive adequate treatment and medical care, and social
distancing in the face of COVID-19.
The Plaintiff contends that by failing to implement controls
necessary to contain the COVID-19 outbreak and stop preventable
deaths at Elkton, the Respondents have violated the Eighth
Amendment rights of the Class and especially of the
Medically-Vulnerable Subclass.
Mark Williams is the warden of Elkton and currently has immediate
custody over Petitioners and all other putative Class members.
Michael Carvajal is the Director of the United States Bureau of
Prisons and is responsible for all people, including Petitioners,
housed at Bureau of Prisons facilities, including all structures at
Elkton.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
David J. Carey, Esq.
Joseph Mead, Esq.
Freda J. Levenson, Esq.
ACLU OF OHIO FOUNDATION
1108 City Park Avenue, Ste. 203
Columbus, OH 43206
Telephone: (614) 586-1972
Facsimile: (614) 586-1974
E-mail: attyjmead@gmail.com
dcarey@acluohio.org
flevenson@acluohio.org
- and -
Mark A. Vander Laan, Esq.
David Singleton, Esq.
OHIO JUSTICE & POLICY CENTER
915 East Ninth Street, Suite 601
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 421-1108
E-mail: mvanderlaan@ohiojpc.org
dsingleton@ohiojpc.org
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Barrett Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit IN RE: ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORP., Case
No. 1:18-cv-01068-RGA (D. Del.), the Lead Plaintiff Jon Barrett
asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying the action as a class action;
2. appointing Mr. Barrett as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Monteverde & Associates PC as Class Counsel.
Envision is an American healthcare company and national hospital
based physician group.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
- and -
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
ETRADE FINANCIAL: Thompson Challenges Sale to Morgan Stanley
------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, RODGER A. LAWSON, KEVIN
T. KABAT, RICHARD J. CARBONE, ROBERT CHERSI, JAIME W. ELLERTSON,
JAMES P. HEALY, JAMES LAM, SHELLEY B. LEIBOWITZ, MICHAEL A. PIZZI,
REBECCA SAEGER, DONNA L. WEAVER, JOSHUA WEINREICH, MORGAN STANLEY,
and MOON-EAGLE MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00553-UNA (D.
Del., April 23, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant
to which E*Trade will be acquired by Morgan Stanley and Moon-Eagle
Merger Sub, Inc.
On February 20, 2020, E*TRADE's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with MS.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, E*TRADE's
stockholders will receive 1.0432 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of E*TRADE common stock they own. On April 17, 2020, the
Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement. The Registration Statement omits material information
regarding the Company's and MS's financial projections, and the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC and Ardea Partners LP.
According to the complaint, the omissions and false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement are material in that a
reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how
to vote on the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement is
an essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the Company's
stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. Because of the
false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement, the
Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm.
The Plaintiff is the owner of E*TRADE common stock.
E*TRADE and its subsidiaries provide financial services including
brokerage and banking products and services to traders, investors,
stock plan administrators and participants, and registered
investment advisers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Gottlieb Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Sherri Gottlieb, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Financial
Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01902 (E.D.N.Y., April
24, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., provides debt collection
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
FORT LINCOLN: Stinger Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene Stinger, Almeda Bush, and Tia Newton, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. FORT LINCOLN
CEMETERY, LLC and SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, Case No.
8:20-cv-01052-TDC (D. Md., April 23, 2020), seeks restitution under
the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wage and overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other
damages to which they may be entitled at law or equity.
The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay the
Plaintiffs one and a half their regular rate of pay for overtime
hours worked during workweeks that the Plaintiffs were ineligible
for the retail sales commission exemption, according to the
complaint. The Defendants also willfully violated the FLSA by
failing to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wage for all hours worked.
Last, the Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by implementing a
compensation plan that provided that the Plaintiffs' receipt of
advances required to meet the Defendants' minimum wage and overtime
obligations created a liability that the Plaintiffs were obligated
to repay.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Counselors at Fort
Lincoln Funeral Home and Cemetery.
Fort Lincoln Cemetery, LLC, is a funeral home, crematory, and
cemetery in Brentwood, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rani Rolston, Esq.
Alan Lescht, Esq.
ALAN LESCHT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1825 K St., NW, Ste. 750
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202.463.6036
Fax: 202.463.6067
Email: rani.rolston@leschtlaw.com
alan.lescht@leschtlaw.com
FORTY SEVEN: Post Class Suit Challenges Gilead Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Forty Seven, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
Joseph Post v. Forty Seven, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00377,
related to the company's merger with Gilead Sciences, Inc.
On March 1, 2020, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, or Merger Agreement, with Gilead Sciences, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, or Parent, and Toro Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, or Purchaser
(or together with Parent, Gilead), pursuant to which we agreed to
be acquired by Gilead in an all-cash transaction for an approximate
value of $4.9 billion.
The company filed a Schedule 14D-9 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on March 10, 2020, relating to the Merger
Agreement.
On March 16 and 17, 2020, complaints were filed by purported
stockholders of the company regarding the Merger.
The first complaint, filed on an individual basis by the plaintiff,
is captioned Stephen Bushanksy v. Forty Seven, Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:20-cv-01853 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2020).
The second complaint, filed as a putative class action, is
captioned Joseph Post v. Forty Seven, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-00377 (D. Del. filed Mar. 17, 2020) (collectively, the
Complaints).
The Complaints name as defendants the company and each member of
its board of directors.
The Post complaint additionally names as defendants Parent and
Purchaser.
The Complaints allege violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange
Act against all defendants, and assert violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.
The Post complaint additionally alleges a violation of Section
14(d) of the Exchange Act against all defendants and a violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Parent and Purchaser.
The plaintiffs contend that the company's Schedule 14D-9 omitted or
misrepresented material information regarding the Merger. The
Complaints seek (i) injunctive relief preventing the consummation
of the Proposed Transaction; (ii) rescissory damages or rescission
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated; and (iii) an
award of plaintiff's expenses and attorneys' fees.
The Post complaint additionally seeks dissemination of a
recommendation statement that discloses certain information
requested by that plaintiff.
Forty Seven said, "We believe the claims asserted in the Complaints
are without merit."
Forty Seven, Inc. operates as a clinical-stage immuno-oncology
company. The Company develops novel checkpoint therapies to
activate macrophages targeting cancer immune evasion pathways.
Forty Seven serves customers in the State of California. The
company is based in Menlo Park, California.
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Young Suit Seeks Refund of Cancelled Flights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Young, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01153 (D.
Colo., April 23, 2020), is brought regarding the Defendant's
failure to provide full refunds to customers whose flights were
cancelled as a result of the coronavirus or COVID-19.
Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, the Defendant has cancelled
a vast percentage of their international and United States flights.
However, the Defendant has, to date, refused to issue refunds for
flights that the Defendant cancelled, the Plaintiff asserts.
The United States Department of Transportation ("DOT") has "issued
an Enforcement Notice clarifying, in the context of the 2019 Novel
Coronavirus (COVID-19) public health emergency, that U.S. and
foreign airlines remain obligated to provide a prompt refund to
passengers for flights to, within, or from the United States when
the carrier cancels the passenger's scheduled flight or makes a
significant schedule change and the passenger chooses not to accept
the alternative offered by the carrier.
The Plaintiff, like many other travelers, was scheduled to fly with
Frontier on a round trip between Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and
New York, New York. The Plaintiff's flight was cancelled by
Frontier due to the coronavirus travel restrictions. After
receiving the cancellation e-mail, the Plaintiff immediately
requested a cash refund from Frontier. A Frontier customer service
representative informed Plaintiff that she would receive said
refund. However, the refund never came, the Plaintiff avers.
After waiting two weeks, the Plaintiff called Frontier to check on
the status of her refund. A Frontier customer service
representative told her that the Plaintiff was never promised a
cash refund and would only be receiving a travel voucher. Frontier
was required by the DOT Enforcement Notice to provide the Plaintiff
a prompt refund when Frontier cancelled her flight, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Melissa Young is a citizen of the State of South Carolina
and resides in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
Frontier is a low-cost airline and among the largest airlines in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
KAMBER LAW, LLC
201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80246
Phone: (303) 222-0281
Email: masch@kamberlaw.com
- and -
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
- and -
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: aobergfell@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
G WILLI FOOD: Suit Over Food Labeling Standards Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action pending before the Jerusalem
District Court for allegedly not complying with food labeling
standards.
A lawsuit and motion to approve a class action was filed on July
17, 2019 against the Company and 11 other respondents in the
Jerusalem District Court for allegedly not complying with food
labeling standards in connection with one of its products, thereby
misleading consumers.
The applicant claimed generally that the respondents have jointly
caused monetary damages of NIS 5 million and more than NIS 3
million to him and the other members of the plaintiff group. The
Company filed an application to dismiss the motion in limine.
On March 5. 2020 a pre-trial hearing was held, during which the
court recommended that the parties consent to withdraw the motion
to approve, until March 19, 2020.
At this preliminary stage, it is difficult to assess the chances
that the motion and the lawsuit will be successful.
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The
company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its
name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food
Investments Ltd.
GATEWAY HEALTH: Coltogirone Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Coltogirone and Martha Aggazio, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GATEWAY HEALTH PLAN, INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-00605-MJH (W.D. Pa., April 24, 2020), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.
The Defendant misclassified Care Management Employees as exempt
from state and federal overtime laws, according to the complaint.
Due to the Defendant's misclassification scheme, the Plaintiff was
not paid all earned overtime pay for time they worked in excess of
40 hours in one or more individual workweeks in violation of the of
the FLSA and PMWA.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Managed Care Employee
from November 2013 to September 2017.
The Defendant is a managed care organization that provides services
to Medicaid and Medicare enrollees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Phone: (412) 766-1455
Fax: (412)766-0300
Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
- and -
Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: (281) 572-0727
Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com
- and -
Jack Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 790-4454
GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy's Bid for Summary Judgment Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the trial court has
granted IDT Energy's motion for summary judgment to dismiss one of
the named plaintiffs in the class action suit related to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
On October 5, 2018, two named plaintiffs filed a putative class
action complaint against IDT Energy alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. in
connection with its telemarketing practices.
IDT Energy denies the allegations in the complaint, which it
believes to be meritless and is vigorously defending this action.
On October 31, 2019 the court granted IDT Energy's motion to
bifurcate individual from class claims to expedite discovery and
dispositive motions related to the named plaintiffs.
On January 9, 2020, the Court granted IDT Energy's motion for
summary judgment to dismiss one of the named plaintiffs for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
Based upon the Company's assessment of this matter, a loss based on
the merits is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss,
if any, estimable as of December 31, 2019.
Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
GENIE ENERGY: Pays $5MM Remaining Liabilities in Suits vs. GRE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company paid all
remaining liabilities related to the class-action lawsuit for total
payments of $5.0 million.
In 2014, three separate putative class-action lawsuits were filed
against Genie Retail Energy (GRE) and certain of its affiliates,
alleging unlawful sales and marketing practices.
The Company denies any basis for those allegations or wrongdoing.
On July 5, 2017, the company entered into a settlement of all three
actions to further its efforts to address its customers' concerns
and on October 18, 2018, the Court entered a final order approving
the Settlement Agreement.
Under the Settlement Agreement, the company agreed to pay certain
amounts to resolve the lawsuits and obtain a release of claims.
The period for class members to make claims has expired, and as of
the second quarter 2019, the company paid all remaining liabilities
related to the class-action lawsuit for total payments of $5.0
million.
Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
GNC HOLDINGS: Pa. Supreme Court Favors Plaintiff in Workweek Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court has ruled in favor of Plaintiffs in the class action related
to Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek claims.
On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced
a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a
purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"),
challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek"
method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all
employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were
paid according to the fluctuating workweek method.
In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of
the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September
2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the
class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge
in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's
fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial
amount in legal fees. The Company appealed the adverse judgment and
the award of attorney's fees.
On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the
Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly
compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that
the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to
determine the amount of overtime owed. Taking accumulated interest
into account, the net result of the Superior Court's decision was
to reduce the Company's liability by an immaterial amount, which
has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial
Statements.
The Company filed a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court on January 22, 2018.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for
appeal and the Company filed its appellant's brief on August 27,
2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs.
GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada,
International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded
in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit Set for July 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that trial in the class action
initiated by Elizabeth Naranjo is currently scheduled for July
2020.
On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda.
The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among
other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which
indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and
legal fees are sought.
In June 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's Motion for Decertification.
In August 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the class
action claims alleging overtime violations.
In November 2019, GNC filed a renewed Motion for Decertification,
which was denied by the Court in January 2020. Trial is currently
scheduled for July 2020.
GNC Holdings said, "As of December 31, 2019, an immaterial
liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
remaining class action claims asserted in this action."
GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada,
International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded
in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Little Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carson Little, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Grand Canyon University, Case No. 2:20-cv-00795-SMB (D.
Ariz., April 24, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who
paid fees and the cost of room and board for the Spring 2020
academic semester at GCU and who, because of GCU's response and
policies relating to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic,
lost the benefits of the room and board for which they had paid,
and/or the services for which their fees were paid, without having
those fees and costs refunded to them in full and without
condition.
On March 12, 2020, GCU announced that because of the global
COVID-19 pandemic, all but a few classes would be moved online for
the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. Students were encouraged
to return to their homes to complete their coursework online.
Because all classes were moved online, all activities suspended,
and facilities were closed, there was no reason for students to
remain on campus if they had other housing available to them and no
reason for students who did not live on campus to come to campus as
they had always done to attend class. This is particularly so in
the face of the dangers, risks, and fear associated with the
pandemic.
Despite its constructive eviction of students from campus for the
remainder of the semester and ending all campus activities for at
least that same time period, GCU has not offered adequate refunds
to students for the unused portion of their room and board, nor has
it offered refunds of fees paid to cover the cost of certain
on-campus services which will no longer be available to students,
according to the complaint. To the extent refunds have been
offered, the refunds have not been commensurate with the financial
losses to the students and their families. GCU is, in essence,
profiting from this pandemic.
GCU's decision to transition to online classes and to instruct
students to leave campus were responsible decisions to make, but it
is unfair and unlawful for GCU to retain fees and costs and to pass
the losses on to the students and their families, the Plaintiff
contends. Accordingly, GCU has improperly retained monies paid by
the Plaintiff for room and board and fees, while prohibiting or
otherwise preventing the Plaintiff from obtaining the benefits for
which they paid, says the complaint.
Carson Little is a GCU student and paid the cost of room and board
and fees for the Spring 2020 semester.
Grand Canyon University is a private, for-profit, Christian
University with its main campus located in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert D. Ryan, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT D. RYAN, P.L.C.
343 West Roosevelt Street, Suite 220
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-256-2333
Email: rob@robertdryan.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Matthew S. Miller, Esq.
MATTHEW S. MILLER LLC
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-741-1085
Email: mmiller@msmillerlaw.com
HAMMER HAAG: Griffin Suit Seeks to Certify WARN Act Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT L. GRIFFIN, JR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HAMMER HAAG
STEEL, INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-03147-VMC-AAS, the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:
1. certifying proposed putative WARN Act Class;
2. appointing himself as Class Representative;
3. appointing his counsel and the firm and members as class
counsel; and
4. allowing him to notify the Class members.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to pay him
Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees their
respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay
vacation which would have accrued for 60 days following their
respective termination without notice and failure to make 401(k)
contributions and provide them with health insurance coverage and
other employee benefits.
Hammer Haag sells fabricated products.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason B. Woodside, Esq.
WOODSIDE LAW, P.A.
100 S. Ashley Dr., Ste. 600
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 606-4872
Facsimile: (813) 333-9845
E-mail: Jason@woodsidelawpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allison Wiggins, Esq.
Kimberly J. Doud, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1750
Orlando, FL 32801
E-mail: awiggins@littler.com
kdoud@littler.com
HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Stockholders Litigation Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend against a consolidated class action suit entitled, Schuff
International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation.
On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBM Global
Inc. (DBMG) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M.
Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald
Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff
International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").
On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.
On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel.
The currently operative complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark
Jacobs. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in
connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the
DBMG Board of Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of
DBMG, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff
class.
The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form
merger based upon plaintiff’s expectation that the Company would
cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the
completion of the tender offer.
The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or
compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief.
The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015.
On November 15, 2019, the parties filed definitive documentation in
support of a proposed settlement of the action. On January 14,
2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint restating and
elaborating on the claims raised in the Complaint.
The amended Complaint seeks compensatory and rescissory damages, as
well as attorney's fees and other relief.
On February 13, 2020, the Court held a settlement hearing to
consider the proposed settlement and certain objections filed by
two current DBMG stockholders. The Court expressed concerns about
certain terms of the proposed settlement and the parties are
considering how to address the Court's concerns.
HC2 Holdings said, "There can be no assurance that any settlement
will be resubmitted by the parties or that the Delaware Courts will
approve any settlement proposed by the parties. If a settlement
cannot be reached, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses
and intends to vigorously defend this matter."
HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
HC2 HOLDINGS: Suit Over Indemnification Rights Closed
-----------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the case pending before
the District of Nebraska was dismissed with prejudice on November
12, 2019, pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation.
On November 28, 2016, Continental General Insurance Company (CGI),
a subsidiary of the Company, Great American Financial Resource,
Inc. ("GAFRI"), American Financial Group, Inc., and CIGNA
Corporation were served with a putative class action complaint
filed by John Fastrich and Universal Investment Services, Inc. in
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract
and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs contend that they were agents of record under
various CGI policies and that CGI allegedly instructed
policyholders to switch to other CGI products and caused the
plaintiffs to lose commissions, renewals, and overrides on policies
that were replaced.
The complaint also alleges breach of contract claims relating to
allegedly unpaid commissions related to premium rate increases
implemented on certain long-term care insurance policies. Finally,
the complaint alleges breach of contract claims related to vesting
of commissions.
On August 21, 2017, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' tortious
interference with contract claim.
CGI believes that the remaining allegations and claims set forth in
the complaint are without merit.
The case was set for voluntary mediation, which occurred on January
26, 2018. The Court stayed discovery pending the outcome of the
mediation. On February 12, 2018, the parties notified the Court
that mediation did not resolve the case and that the parties'
discussions regarding a possible settlement of the action were
still ongoing.
The Court held a status conference on March 22, 2018, during which
the parties informed the Court that settlement negotiations remain
ongoing. Nonetheless, the Court entered a scheduling order setting
the case for trial during the week of October 15, 2019.
Meanwhile, the parties' continued settlement negotiations led to a
tentative settlement. On February 4, 2019, the plaintiffs executed
a class settlement agreement with CGI, Loyal American Life
Insurance Company, American Retirement Life Insurance Company,
GAFRI, and American Financial Group, Inc. (collectively, the
Defendants).
The settlement agreement, which would require GAFRI to make a $1.25
million payment on behalf of the Defendants, is subject to Court
approval. On February 4, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement in a parallel action
in the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 17-CV-00615-SJD, which
motion was granted by the Southern District of Ohio on April 2,
2019.
Meanwhile, the case pending before the District of Nebraska was
stayed on February 6, 2019, pending final approval of the class
action settlement in the Ohio action.
The Court held a final settlement hearing on September 17, 2019. On
October 7, 2019, the Court entered a final approval order
certifying the class and approving the class settlement. On October
22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees
and costs.
On October 25, 2019, the Court entered final judgment and closed
the Ohio action. The case pending before the District of Nebraska
was dismissed with prejudice on November 12, 2019, pursuant to the
parties' joint stipulation.
The Company and CGI sought defense costs and indemnification for
plaintiffs' claims from GAFRI and Continental General Corporation
("CGC") under the terms of an Amended and Restated Stock Purchase
Agreement ("SPA") related to the Company's acquisition of CGI in
December 2015.
GAFRI and CGC rejected CGI's demand for defense and indemnification
and, on January 18, 2017, the Company and CGI filed a Complaint
against GAFRI and CGC in the Superior Court of Delaware seeking a
declaratory judgment to enforce their indemnification rights under
the SPA. On February 23, 2017, GAFRI answered CGI's complaint,
denying the allegations. The dispute is ongoing and CGI intends to
continue to pursue its right to a defense and indemnity under the
SPA regardless of the tentative settlement in the class action.
Meanwhile, the parties' continued settlement negotiations resulted
in a settlement agreement in the Delaware action. The settlement
agreement, which was contingent on the final approval of the class
action settlement in the Ohio action, required CGI to contribute
$250,000 to the settlement payment made by GAFRI in the class
action.
No further contributions to the class action settlement will be
required of CGI. Once the class action settlement became final, CGI
and GAFRI filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the Delaware action,
which stipulation was entered by the Court on January 21, 2020.
The Delaware action is now closed.
HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Appeals Order in Consumer Credit Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alejandro Morales filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit styled Alejandro Morales v. Healthcare
Revenue Recovery Group LLC, Case No. 2-15-cv-08401, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.
The appellate case is captioned as Alejandro Morales v. Healthcare
Revenue Recovery Group LLC, Case No. 20-1827, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALEJANDRO MORALES, On behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, is represented by:
Evan W. Lehrer, Esq.
Yongmoon Kim Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (973) 94-6384
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
– and –
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081
Telephone: (973) 379-7500
Defendant-Appellee HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP LLC is
represented by:
Christian M. Scheuerman, Esq.
MARKS O'NEILL O'BRIEN DOHERTY & KELLY
535 Route 38 East, Suite 501
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 663-4300
HORSEHEAD HOLDING: Rule 23 Class Cert. Sought in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RE: HORSEHEAD HOLDING CORP.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-00292-LPS-CJB (D. Del.),
the Court-Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Dyson Capital Management Ltd.
and Raymond Cook, and additional Plaintiff Ross O. Swimmer, move
the Court for an Order:
1. certifying this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(3) as a class action and certifying the proposed
Class;
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Fox Rothschild
LLP as Lead and Liaison Counsel, respectively.
Horsehead is a zinc producer and manufacturer.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
Johnna M. Darby, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
Citizens Bank Center
919 North Market Street, Suite 300
Wilmington, DE 19899-2323
Telephone: (302) 442-7627
E-mail: sliebesman@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
KRANENBURG
80-83 Long Lane
London EC1A9ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: 44-20-3174-0365
E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com
- and -
Avi Wagner, Esq.
THE WAGNER FIRM
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 491-7949
Facsimile: (310) 694-3967
E-mail: avi@thewagnerfirm.com
IDEANOMICS INC: Miranda Suit in New York Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Ideanomics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action entitled, Jose Pinto Claro Da Fonseca Miranda
v. Ideanomics, Inc.
On July 19, 2019, a purported class action, captioned Jose Pinto
Claro Da Fonseca Miranda v. Ideanomics, Inc., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers.
While the Company believes that the Class Action is without merit
and plans to vigorously defend itself against these claims, there
can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuits.
The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, that it may experience in connection with these
litigations.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ideanomics, Inc. operates as a financial technology and asset
digitization services company. The Company was formerly known as
Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc. Ideanomics, Inc. was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in New York, New York.
INTEGRATED CAPITAL: Martinez Sues in Calif. Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrated Capital
Recovery, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Brandon Martinez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Integrated Capital Recovery, LLC, DNF Associates LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00582-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal., April 23, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Integrated Capital Recovery, LLC, is a collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action complaint spearheaded by Edgardo Canez is
pending.
On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
company's press releases and SEC filings were misleading as a
result of the failure to disclose alleged related party
transactions affecting revenue recognition and the absence of
disclosure regarding certain allegations against former director
Parker H. Petit in connection with his former position with MiMedx,
Inc.
The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired the
company's stock during the period from January 23, 2019, through
May 29, 2019, and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result
of the alleged misleading statements.
On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed Edgardo Canez as lead
plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") on behalf of the putative class. On
November 18, 2019, Lead Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
putative class of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded company securities from May 23, 2014
through May 29, 2019, filed an amended class action complaint
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers (the "Amended Complaint").
The Amended Complaint alleges similar allegations in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as the
previously filed complaint.
The Amended Complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs
and unspecified damages.
On January 2, 2020, Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss and on
March 3, 2020, briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed. The
motion to dismiss is currently pending.
Intelligent Systems said, "We dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously."
Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991,
is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and
processing services to the financial technology and services
market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services
(FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software,
Inc. (CoreCard) subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross,
Georgia.
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Bid to Dismiss Woolgar Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kingstone Companies, Inc.'s request to dismiss a class action
remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On June 12, 2019, Phillip Woolgar filed a suit naming the Company
and certain present or former officers and directors as defendants
in a putative class action captioned Woolgar v. Kingstone Companies
et al., 19 cv 05500 (S.D.N.Y.), asserting claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased Kingstone securities between March 14, 2018, and April
29, 2019, and alleges violations of the federal securities law in
connection with the Company's April 29, 2019 announcement regarding
losses related to winter catastrophe events.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it did
not adequately follow industry best practices related to claims
handling and thus did not record sufficient claim reserves, and
that as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects misled investors.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an undetermined amount of
money damages.
The company believes the lawsuit to be without merit. On February
18, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed with the court.
Kingstone said, "However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and
we are unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate
the range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome. We also cannot provide any assurance that the ultimate
resolution of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect
on our operations or financial condition."
* * *
On April 20, the lead plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
According to a Scheduling Order, Defendants must file any reply
papers in further support of their motion(s) on or before May 20,
2020.
Kingstone Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Kingstone
Insurance Company, underwrites property and casualty insurance
products to small businesses and individuals in New York. The
company was formerly known as DCAP Group, Inc. and changed its name
to Kingstone Companies, Inc. in July 2009. Kingstone Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Kingston, New
York.
KITOV PHARMA: Class Suits Over Consensi(TM) Trials Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharma Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend putative class action suits in Israel related to the
company's lead drug candidate, Consensi(TM).
On February 16, 2017, the company announced that four lawsuits and
motions to approve the lawsuits as a class action lawsuit were
filed against it and certain of its office holders at the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division), and served on the company, with
each such motion relating to the ISA Investigation into the
company's public disclosures around certain aspects of the studies
related to its lead drug candidate, Consensi(TM)(the "2017
Motions"). One of these motions was subsequently withdrawn.
The petitioners in one of the motions petitioned the court to
dismiss the other 2017 Motions. On December 19, 2017 the court
granted the Petition for Dismissal and dismissed the other
outstanding 2017 Motions.
The remaining motion from the 2017 Motions was filed against
company, its executive directors and certain of its present and
former directors, by certain shareholders who are requesting to act
as representatives of all shareholders of record from December 10,
2015 until February 6, 2017.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company
included misleading information in its public filings which caused
the class for which the plaintiffs are seeking recognition, an
aggregate loss of approximately NIS 29 million (approximately US$ 8
million at prevailing exchange rates).
The court ordered a stay of proceedings due to the ongoing ISA
Investigation.
Following approval of the Enforcement Arrangement in connection
with the ISA Investigation, the stay was lifted.
On March 8, 2020 the court approved scheduling arrangement agreed
to by the parties to the Surviving Motion, whereby the petitioners
in the Surviving Motion will have 45 days to submit an amended
lawsuit and motion to approve the lawsuit as a class action, the
respondents will have 60 days following the submission of such
amended fillings to submit their responses, and the petitioners
will then have an additional 30 days to respond to the
respondents’ filings.
Under applicable Israeli law, a motion to approve a lawsuit as a
class action initially needs to be approved as such by the court.
Only after such approval is granted by the court, will the court
proceed to the second stage of hearing the underlying claims of the
class action lawsuit.
The company's management rejects the claims in all of the aforesaid
2017 Motions.
Kitov said, "At this preliminary stage we are unable, with any
degree of certainty, to make any evaluations or any assessments
with respect to the 2017 Motions as to the probability of success
or the scope of potential exposure, if any, including, without
limitation, the effects of the Enforcement Arrangement and/or the
Settlement of the U.S. Class actions may have on the 2017 Motion."
Kitov Pharma Ltd, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
development stage biopharmaceutical company in Israel. It develops
combination drugs for the simultaneous treatment of pain caused by
osteoarthritis and hypertension. The company is based in Tel Aviv,
Israel.
KITOV PHARMA: Continues to Defend Investors' Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharma Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities.
On February 7, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov
Pharma's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative class
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov Pharma's
securities, filed a lawsuit relating to the ISA Investigation in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Kitov Pharma, its CEO and CFO, alleging violations of
U.S. federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages and
other relief based on, among other things, Kitov Pharma allegedly
including misleading information in its public filings.
On May 19, 2017, the company filed a brief in opposition to a
pending motion by two individuals to, among other things, appoint
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead plaintiffs' counsel, on the basis
that the firm represents an overlapping putative class of
plaintiffs in the consolidated California state court action.
On May 26, 2017, the movants filed a reply brief in which they
represent that they are withdrawing their request to appoint The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as plaintiffs' co-lead counsel.
By order entered on May 5, 2017, the court approved the parties'
proposed case schedule, thereby providing the plaintiffs through
June 19, 2017 to file an amended complaint. An amended complaint
was filed on June 19, 2017, which complaint limited the scope of
its claims as compared to the original complaint.
On August 2, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs opposed the
company's motion on August 30, 2017, and the company's reply was
filed on September 27, 2017.
In addition, on September 20, 2017, the company filed a letter
motion requesting a conference on the issue of whether this
litigation should be dismissed following the company's discovery
of posts on an investment message board appearing to have been made
by the lead plaintiff in the case, and stating that he did not know
himself to be a plaintiff in this action.
On September 21st, the court granted the company's request, and on
November 7th, the court ordered that the issues raised in the
company's letter motion would be considered together with and
supplementing our motion to dismiss.
In March 2018, the court rendered a decision on the company's
motion to dismiss, dismissing all claims against the company's CFO
and a partial dismissal of certain claims against the company's and
the company's CEO.
Kitov Pharma Ltd, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
development stage biopharmaceutical company in Israel. It develops
combination drugs for the simultaneous treatment of pain caused by
osteoarthritis and hypertension. The company is based in Tel Aviv,
Israel.
KITOV PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in California Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharma Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery against
underwriters defendants is continuing in a consolidated class
action suit pending before the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo.
On February 10, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov
Pharma's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative class
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov Pharma's
securities, filed a lawsuit relating to the ISA Investigation in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo against Kitov Pharma, its CEO and CFO, and the underwriters
of Kitov Pharma's initial public offering, alleging violations of
U.S. federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages and
other relief based on, among other things, Kitov Pharma allegedly
including misleading information in its public filings.
On March 20, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov
Pharma's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative class
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov Pharma's
securities, filed a lawsuit relating to the ISA Investigation in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo against Kitov Pharma, its CEO and CFO, and the underwriters
of Kitov Pharma's initial public offering, alleging violations of
U.S. federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages and
other relief based on, among other things, Kitov Pharma allegedly
including misleading information in its public filings.
On April 6, 2017, the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo entered an order consolidating the two
California putative class actions, appointed the lead counsel to
plaintiffs in the consolidated action and set a case schedule. An
amended complaint was filed on or about June 5, 2017.
On August 3, 2017, a motion of demurrer was filed on behalf of the
Company and the individual defendants to dismiss the complaint
against them, and, in the alternative, a motion was filed to stay
the action, including, until the Supreme Court of the United States
has ruled as to the jurisdiction of the California state court to
hear this dispute.
The underwriter defendants also filed a motion of demurrer.
Answering papers were filed by plaintiffs on September 19, 2017;
the company's reply papers were filed on October 19, 2017; and the
hearing on this motion was held on October 26, 2017.
At the hearing, the judge ruled against the company, the individual
defendants and the company's underwriters, denying the company's
demurrers and its motions to stay the entirety of the matter.
The company filed an answer on or about November 24, 2017. On
December 15, 2017, the company filed a more limited motion to stay
discovery pending the resolution of the ISA Investigation.
Following plaintiffs' opposition to the company's motion on January
5, 2018 and the company's reply in further support on January 16,
2018, the court ruled in the company's favor after arguments on
January 29th, 2018 staying discovery by plaintiffs against the
Company and the individual defendants until June 1, 2018, at which
point the parties are to update the court on the status of the
ISA's investigation. Discovery against the underwriters continued.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Kitov Pharma Ltd, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
development stage biopharmaceutical company in Israel. It develops
combination drugs for the simultaneous treatment of pain caused by
osteoarthritis and hypertension. The company is based in Tel Aviv,
Israel.
KITOV PHARMA: Evidentiary Hearing in IPO Suit Set for June 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharma Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that an evidentiary hearing in
the class action suit pending before the Tel Aviv District Court
(Economic Division), related to the company's 2015 Initial Public
Offering (IPO) is scheduled for June 23, 2020.
On December 3, 2015, the company announced that it received a
lawsuit and motion to approve the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit
pursuant to the Class Action Lawsuits Law 5766-2006 (the "2015
Motion") which was filed against the company and its directors at
the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division).
The 2015 Motion is with respect to asserted claims for damages to
the holders of the company's securities listed on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange, arising due to the public offering of our initial
public offering of our securities in the U.S. during November 2015.
In the 2015 Motion it was claimed that the class the petitioners
are seeking to represent, namely, anyone holding the company's
shares at the start of trading on November 22, 2015 exclusive of
the respondents and/or anyone acting on their behalf and/or any
affiliates thereof and excluding anyone whose rights to the
company's shares derive from ADS certificates issued in the U.S to
such extent as derived therefrom; and any holders of the company's
Series 2 TASE listed warrants as of the start of trading on
November 22, 2015, exclusive of the respondents and/or anyone
acting on their behalf and/or any affiliates thereof (Purported
Class).
The total amount claimed from all defendants, if the 2015 Motion is
certified as a class action, as set forth in the motion is
approximately NIS 16.4 million.
In addition to this amount, the petitioners in the motion are
seeking remedies in order to redress discrimination against the
Purported Class owing to the dilution caused by the public
offering, including the possibility that the Purported Class should
be awarded from Kitov Pharma amounts reflecting the losses of the
Purported Class from a possible price increase in the shares of
Kitov Pharma following the announcement of the Phase III clinical
trial results.
Under applicable Israeli law, a motion to approve a lawsuit as a
class action initially needs to be approved as such by the court.
Only after such approval is granted by the court, will the court
proceed to the second stage of hearing the underlying claims of the
class action lawsuit.
The company announced that it rejected the claims asserted in the
2015 Motion. The company had delivered its responses to the court
in accordance with applicable law, and a preliminary hearing was
held by the court on September 12, 2016.
At such hearing the court determined that certain claims of the
petitioners in connection with alleged personal interests by
affiliates of Kitov Pharma in connection with the public offering
of the company's initial public offering of its securities in the
U.S. during November 2015 are not part of the grounds for the 2015
Motion and no remedies shall be sought by the petitioners in
connection therewith.
The court set a schedule for the submission by the petitioners of a
motion for discovery, and any responses to such motion. An
additional preliminary hearing was held on February 7, 2017.
At that hearing the court ruled on the scope of the petitioners'
motion for discovery, and pursuant to such ruling Kitov Pharma
delivered to the petitioners (subject to signing confidentiality
undertakings) certain protocols of the board of directors of Kitov
Pharma. The parties subsequently filed various motions in
connection with discovery.
On March 30, 2017 the court ordered the parties to negotiate on the
matter in order to try and reach a procedural agreement. On June 4,
2017 a preliminary hearing was held at which the court ruled on
matters concerning discovery and scheduled an evidentiary hearing
for October 30, 2017.
On October 24, 2017 the court issued a ruling to stay proceedings
in this matter until January 15, 2018 due to the ongoing ISA
Investigation. This stay was subsequently extended by the court,
which ruled that the evidentiary hearing shall not be rescheduled
and that the stay of proceedings shall remain in place pending
delivery of a notice to the court by the ISA with respect to an
update on the ISA Investigation. At the request of the ISA, this
stay was subsequently extended several times by the court.
Following approval of the Enforcement Arrangement in connection
with the ISA Investigation, the stay was lifted. An evidentiary
hearing was scheduled for June 23, 2020.
Kitov Pharma Ltd, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
development stage biopharmaceutical company in Israel. It develops
combination drugs for the simultaneous treatment of pain caused by
osteoarthritis and hypertension. The company is based in Tel Aviv,
Israel.
KNAUF INSULATION: Appeals Ruling in Brancaccio Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Knauf Insulation, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Richard Brancaccio v. Knauf
Insulation, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01439-CJC-AGR, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
asserts these claims: Unpaid Overtime Wages Claim, Unpaid Meal
Period Premiums, Unpaid Rest Period Premiums, Unpaid Minimum Wages
Claim, Final Wages Claim, Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements, Failure to Maintain Records, and Attorneys' Fees. The
Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees worked over eight hours
in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with
the Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned as Richard Brancaccio v. Knauf
Insulation, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-80071, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent RICHARD BRANCACCIO, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
is represented by:
Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Defendant-Petitioner KNAUF INSULATION, INC., an unknown business
entity, is represented by:
L. Rachel Lerman, Esq.
Scott Jay Witlin, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 284-3871
Email: rachel.lerman@btlaw.com
scott.witlin@btlaw.com
LA RAZA PIZZA: Mitchell Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Mitchell, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. LA RAZA PIZZA, INC. d/b/a "Pizza Hut," and GENE CAMARENA
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-01248-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 24,
2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Indiana Minimum Wage Law to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by the Defendants.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
and state minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the
complaint.
Joshua Mitchell was employed by the Defendants between June 2017
and December 2017 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Pizza
Hut.
The Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut franchise stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Haynie, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (214) 346-5909
LAND'S END: Delta Flight Attendants Class Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Lands' End, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend four separate lawsuits commenced by Delta Airlines flight
attendants, each of which seeks class certification.
Each of the four separate lawsuits seeks class certification and
alleges similar injuries and claims:
(1) DeCrescentis et al., v. Lands' End, Inc., United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action
No. l 9-cv- 4717-LJL, complaint filed May 22, 2019;
(2) Gilbert et al. v. Lands' End, Inc., United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No.
3:19-cv-00823-JDP, complaint filed October 3, 2019;
(3) Andrews et al. v. Lands' End, Inc., United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No.
3:19-cv-01066-JDP, complaint filed on December 31, 2019, on behalf
of 521 named plaintiffs, later amended to include 1,089 named
plaintiffs; and
(4) Davis et al. v. Lands' End, Inc. and Lands' End Business
Outfitters, Inc., United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, Case No. 3:20-cv-00195, complaint filed on
March 4, 2020.
Plaintiffs in DeCrescentis seeks class certification for similarly
situated New York-based Delta Airlines flight attendants, gate
agents, and ramp agents.
Plaintiffs in Gilbert, Andrews, and Davis seek nationwide class
certification on behalf of similarly situated Delta employees.
Plaintiffs in DeCrescentis and Gilbert allege they have suffered
adverse health events and personal property damage as a result of
wearing uniforms manufactured by Lands' End.
Andrews and Davis plaintiffs assert personal injuries due to
adverse health effects but do not allege personal property damage.
The DeCrescentis matter is currently in discovery.
Plaintiffs in DeCrescentis, Gilbert, and Davis each assert that the
damages sustained by the members of the proposed class exceed
$5,000,000. Plaintiffs in all four cases seek damages for personal
injuries, pain and suffering, severe emotional distress, financial
or economic loss, including medical services and expenses, lost
income and other compensable injuries.
On March 9, 2020, Plaintiffs in Gilbert, Andrews, and Davis filed a
motion to consolidate the three case schedules. Lands' End has
filed a motion in opposition of consolidation. Further, in Gilbert,
Lands' End has filed a motion to strike class allegations.
Lands' End is vigorously defending all four lawsuits and believes
they are without merit.
Lands' End, Inc. manufactures men's, women's, and children's
apparel and accessories. The Company produces and distributes
swimwear, clothing, bedding, totes, furniture, bath accessories,
uniforms, outerwear, and various related products. Lands' End
offers its products through its catalog and website worldwide. The
company is based in Dodgeville, Wisconsin.
LIBERTY MUTUAL: 401(k) Plan Members Allege Fund Mismanagement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yusuf Ahmed, Mary Ann Stocum, Andrew Loring, Mark Severn, Edward
Lief and Scott Diehl, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., the
401(k) Plan Administrative Committee, David H. Long, James
Kelleher, Mark C. Touhey, Neeti Bhalla, Dennis J. Langwell, Melanie
M. Foley, Christopher Peirce and John Does 1-40, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-30056, (D. Mass., April 12, 2020) seeks to recover all
losses to plan profits, equitable or remedial relief and redress
for breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions under
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Plaintiffs are former and current employees of Liberty Mutual who
represent participants and beneficiaries of the Liberty Mutual
401(k) Plan or the Liberty Mutual Employees Thrift-Incentive Plan.
Said plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee
pension benefit plan providing for retirement income for eligible
employees of Liberty Mutual. Eligible employees include all
employees.
Defendants allegedly selected and retained imprudent investment
options by retaining the Sterling Mid-Cap Value Portfolio despite
the fact that it had grossly underperformed its benchmark and
similar mid-cap value funds for years and by retaining the Wells
Fargo Government Money Market Fund as the only stable income
investment option in the plan despite the fact that stable value
funds provide a similar stable income option with much higher
returns in all markets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert T. Naumes, Esq.
Christopher Naumes, Esq,
NAUMES LAW GROUP
2 Granite Ave, #425
Milton, MA 02186
Tel: (617) 227-8444
Fax: (617) 696-2437
Email: robert@naumeslaw.com
christopher@naumeslaw.com
- and -
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
Scott T. Apking, Esq.
Joel Rohlf, Esq.
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 621-6115
Fax: (314) 621-5934
Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com
mwolff@uselaws.com
aschlichter@uselaws.com
kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
jrohlf@uselaws.com
sapking@uselaws.com
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the company has filed its opposition on plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend the complaint in Glover class suit.
Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all
such policyholders.
On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.
In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which the company had opposed.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LIVE NATION: Faces Tezak Suit Over Refusal to Refund Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------
John Tezak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, and TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-02482 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for breach of contract; conversion;
negligent misrepresentation; violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act; violations of the Illinois Ticket Sale and Resale Act;
and unjust enrichment.
The Defendants have sought to surreptitiously shift their losses
onto their innocent customers, furthering the financial hardship
endured by people across the country, the Plaintiff asserts. The
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and individuals,
who purchased tickets to the Defendants' events, which in response
to apparent liabilities they would incur stemming from the COVID-19
pandemic, the Defendants "postponed" indefinitely so that they
could keep their customers' money as a form of interest-free loan.
The Defendants have quietly sought to force their buyers to endure
the financial losses that the Defendants created for themselves in
the entirely foreseeable scenario that world occurrences would
cause the simultaneous cancellation of numerous public events,
according to the complaint. On mid-December of 2019, the Plaintiff
purchased two tickets from the Defendants to their March 17, 2020
Blake Shelton concert at the Allstate Arena in Rosemont Illinois.
The Plaintiff paid $300 for the two tickets.
Due to the pandemic, the concert did not occur, but was "postponed"
indefinitely. The Defendants received the Plaintiff's money for a
concert that cannot reasonably be expected to occur any time in the
foreseeable future and are refusing to refund it. The Plaintiff
seeks an order requiring the Defendants to, among other things:
cease retaining funds for any cancelled and/or constructively
cancelled event; cease listing events as postponed when they know
that that they cannot reasonably be rescheduled; and pay damages
and/or restitution to the Plaintiff and Class members, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff John Tezak is an individual and a citizen of Illinois.
Live Nation is the parent company of Ticketmaster and according to
its own description "the largest live entertainment company in the
world." Ticketmaster is the nation's most dominant ticketing
company, and it provides ticketing services for most if not
substantially all of Live Nation's events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Phone: 313-392-0015
Fax: 313-392-0025
Email: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
LM ERICSSON: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Class Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------
LM Ericsson Telephone Co. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has granted
the company's motion to dismiss the putative class action filed in
2018 against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
On January 11, 2020, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted Ericsson's motion to dismiss
the putative class action filed in 2018 against Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson, the present President and CEO and the Chief Financial
Officer of Ericsson as well as three former executives.
LM Ericsson said, "At the same time the court granted plaintiffs
leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty days. The
plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by the court-ordered
deadline."
Stockholm, Sweden-based LM Ericsson Telephone Co. provides
telecommunications equipment and related services to operators of
mobile and fixed networks worldwide and is a subsidiary of
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Afinowicz Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 20, 2020,
that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
John R. Afinowicz v. LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
On March 18, 2020, a purported shareholder class action, John R.
Afinowicz v. LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming
LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers as
defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
the Company's Investigational New Drug submission of LB-001 in its
public disclosures, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period from December 3, 2018 through
February 10, 2020.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.
The Company believes that this action is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.
LogicBio said, "At this time, no assessment can be made as to the
likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be
material to the Company."
* * *
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LOGC) between December 3, 2018 and February 10, 2020,
inclusive of the important May 18, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
the class action first filed by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for LogicBio investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the LogicBio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1776.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) LogicBio's behind-schedule and rushed Investigational New
Drug submission of LB-001 did not answer certain pertinent clinical
and nonclinical questions; (2) as a result, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration was likely to hold or deny the IND submission of
LB-001 for treatment of methylmalonic acidemia (MMA); and (3) as a
result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 18,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1776.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company.
The Company develops therapeutic gene therapy vectors for the
treatment of genetic and infectious diseases. LogicBio Therapeutics
serves patients in the State of Massachusetts. The company is based
in Cambridge Massachusetts.
LYFT INC: Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision in Rogers Employment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Lyft, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in
the lawsuit styled John Rogers, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No.
3:20-cv-01938-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the failure of the Defendant to pay sick leave to the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated as required by
California law. The Defendant does not pay its drivers including
the Plaintiff for sick leave as required by the law as it
misclassified them as independent contractors rather than its
employees.
According to the complaint, the harm extends not only to drivers
but to the public as well, particularly as the international
community is facing a worldwide crisis in the spread of COVID-19.
The failure of the Defendant to comply with California law is
therefore creating an immediate danger as Lyft drivers including
Plaintiff will continue working and risk exposing hundreds of
drivers who enter their car on a weekly basis to this deadly
disease, faced with the choice of staying home without pay and
risking losing their access to their livelihood including housing,
food, and other necessities of living.
The appellate case is captioned as John Rogers, et al. v. Lyft,
Inc., Case No. 20-15700, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN ROGERS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Anne Kramer, Esq.
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
Defendant-Appellant LYFT, INC., is represented by:
Rachael E. Meny, Esq.
Eugene Morris Paige, Esq.
R. James Slaughter, Esq.
KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
Email: rmeny@keker.com
epaige@keker.com
rslaughter@keker.com
– and –
Dane Paul Shikman, Esq.
Rohit K. Singla, Esq.
Jeffrey Y. Wu, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
MDL 2185: 28 Actions Involving 115 Plaintiffs Underway
------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that 28 actions on behalf of
115 plaintiffs remain pending in the multi-district litigation, No.
2185.
Following court approval of the settlement of a securities class
action brought on behalf of a class of post-explosion American
depository share (ADS) holders in 2017, there remained individual
cases filed in state and federal courts by pension funds,
investment funds and advisers.
These were against BP entities and several current and former
officers and directors seeking damages for alleged losses those
funds suffered because of their purchases and/or holdings of BP
ordinary shares and, in certain cases, ADSs.
The funds assert claims under English law and, for plaintiffs
purchasing ADSs, federal securities law. All of the cases, with the
exception of one case that has been stayed, were transferred to MDL
2185.
As at 31 December 2019, 28 actions on behalf of 115 plaintiffs
remained pending in MDL 2185.
Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the district court, fact
and expert discovery with respect to 16 representative plaintiffs
is scheduled to proceed through to August 2020 and dispositive
motions are scheduled to be filed by 27 October 2020.
BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. BP
p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the
United Kingdom.
MDL 2709: Dollar General Still Faces Motor Oil Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Dollar
General Corp. Motor Oil Litigation, Case MDL No. 2709.
In December 2015 the Company was first notified of several lawsuits
in which plaintiffs allege violation of state law, including state
consumer protection laws, relating to the labeling, marketing and
sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil.
Each of these lawsuits, as well as additional, similar lawsuits
filed after December 2015, was filed in, or removed to, various
federal district courts of the United States (collectively "Motor
Oil Lawsuits").
On June 2, 2016, the Motor Oil Lawsuits were centralized in a
matter styled In re Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Litigation, Case
MDL No. 2709, before the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri ("Motor Oil MDL").
In their consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs in the
Motor Oil MDL sought to certify two nationwide classes and multiple
statewide sub-classes and for each putative class member some or
all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, statutory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
The Company's motion to dismiss the allegations raised in the
consolidated amended complaint was granted in part and denied in
part on August 3, 2017.
Dollar General said, "To the extent additional consumer lawsuits
alleging violation of laws relating to the labeling, marketing and
sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil have been or will be
filed, the Company expects that such lawsuits will be transferred
to the Motor Oil MDL."
Dollar General Corporation is among the largest discount retailers
in the United States by number of stores, with 16,368 stores
located in 45 states as of February 28, 2020, with the greatest
concentration of stores in the southern, southwestern, midwestern
and eastern United States. The company offers a broad selection of
merchandise, including consumable items, seasonal items, home
products and apparel. Its merchandise includes national brands from
leading manufacturers, as well as its own private brand selections
with prices at substantial discounts to national brands. The
company is based in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.
MDL 2801: Settlement Reached in Capacitors Antitrust Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 16, 2020, that a
settlement agreement has been entered in the class action suit
entitled, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation,
No.14-cv-03264-JD, MDL 2801.
On March 12, 2020, AVX Corporation entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in the antitrust suit pending in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California as In
re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No.14-cv-03264-JD, MDL 2801.
Under the Settlement Agreement, in consideration for the release of
the Company and their affiliates from all claims relating in any
way to the conduct alleged in the Class Action Suit and from claims
which could have been asserted in the Class Action Suit to the
extent they relate to the sale of capacitors in the United States,
the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of $65,000,000 to the
settlement class of plaintiffs. Pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay an aggregate of
$65,000,000 into an escrow account within 30 calendar days of the
date of the Settlement Agreement.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement the Company did not
admit to any violation of any statute or law or to any liability or
wrongdoing.
The Settlement Agreement is subject to court approval.
The settlement amount will be reflected on the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal quarter ending
March 31, 2020.
AVX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures,
supplies, and resells various electronic components, interconnect
devices, sensing and control devices, and related
productsworldwide. The company operates through Electronic
Components; and Interconnect, Sensing and Control Devices segments.
The company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Fountain
Inn, South Carolina. AVX Corporation is a subsidiary of Kyocera
Corporation.
MINNESOTA: Jackson Appeals Order in Civil Rights Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tony Jackson filed a motion for permission to appeal in
forma pauperis ("IFP") entered on April 13, 2020, in the lawsuit
entitled Tony Dejuan Jackson v. Tim Walz, et al., Case No.
0:19-cv-02612-JNE, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Prisoner Civil
Rights Act.
Mr. Jackson commenced the lawsuit under Title 42, United States
Code, Section 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights during
his incarceration in prisons operated by the State of Minnesota.
Jackson thereafter filed a 163-page amended complaint, which
alleges the following five violations of his civil rights: (1)
unconstitutional conditions of confinement; (2) unlawful
retaliation and mail tampering; (3) unfair wage practices; (4)
occurrences of hate crimes, harassment, and false imprisonment; and
(5) unlawful denial of Internet access. He seeks injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, $3.5 billion in compensatory damages,
and punitive damages. He subsequently filed additional motions to
enjoin the conduct alleged in his amended complaint and for other
relief related to the lawsuit.
The appellate case is captioned as Tony Jackson v. Tim Walz, et
al., Case No. 20-1805, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant Tony D. Jackson, Jail House Lawyer, Other
Similarly Situated Prisoners At Stillwater Correctional Facility &
Other Similarly Situated Prisoners At Rush City Correctional
Facility & All Other Minnesota Correctional Facilities & Contracted
Half Way Housing & Minnesota Assoc., appears pro se.[BN]
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Geiger FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is captioned as MOSHE GEIGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-01889-EGS (E.D. Pa., April 14, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Nationwide Credit provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Ann Pirillo, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7600
E-mail: mpirillo@sanderslawpllc.com
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from the
court's order approving the settlement of the class action lawsuit
by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund is ongoing.
On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated.
Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation ("NMFC") and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"),
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks
and credit rating agencies.
The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members.
On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with
leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.
On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second
amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal.
On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case.
Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court
which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class
representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in
which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded
the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.
On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers.
The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary
approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.
One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and
sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the
ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no
opportunity to timely opt out of the class. After the court
rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and
requested a stay of the district court proceedings pending
disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the
temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19,
2018 dismissed the appeal as moot.
Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition
for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness
hearing. On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum
and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice.
Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal
on March 26, 2019 and their opening brief was filed on June 28,
2019. The defendants answered on September 27, 2019, and the
objector replied on October 18, 2019.
Oral argument was held on February 19, 2020.
Novation said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes final,
which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company
believes that the Affiliated Defendants have meritorious defenses
to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final,
expects them to defend the case vigorously."
Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.
ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Says Exposure to EasyPark Card Suit "Low"
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Track Innovations Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company will not
participate a potential class action related to the EasyPark card
in Israel.
In July 2019, the Company received a request, to allow a petitioner
to submit a class action, which concerns the petitioner's claims
that, inter alia, through the EasyPark card, drivers are permitted
to exceed the quota of permitted hours in accordance with the
instructions of various local authorities in Israel.
The Request was submitted against a company (the "Buyer's Company")
incorporated by the buyer of the assets (including the parking
activity) of the Israeli subsidiaries of the Company and against
two other companies that operate technological means for payment
for public parking spaces scattered throughout the cities.
Since the majority of potential claims against the Company's
Subsidiaries relate to the period following the sale of the
Company's Subsidiaries' assets, including the parking activity, it
appears that the Company's exposure through this channel is
limited.
Furthermore, even if payment will be required, the buyer would be
liable for the majority of such payment. Therefore the Company will
not participate in such procedure at this stage.
Based on the assessment of the Company's external legal counsel,
the exposure of the Company is low.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
On Track Innovations Ltd. designs, develops, and markets secure
contactless microprocessor-based smart card technology to address
the needs of a variety of markets. The Company has developed
product solutions for micropayments, mass transit ticketing,
parking, loyalty programs, and other applications.
ONCOSEC MEDICAL: Alpha Holdings Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Oncosec Medical Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that
On October 29, 2019, the Company's stockholder, Alpha Holdings,
Inc. ("Alpha") filed two civil actions in the district court, Clark
County, Nevada, related to the proposed equity investment in the
Company by (i) Grand Decade Developments Limited ("Grand Decade"),
a British Virgin Islands limited company and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of China Grand Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Holdings
Limited ("CGP") and (ii) Sirtex Medical US Holdings, Inc., an
affiliate of CGP ("Sirtex").
The first action, asserted against the Company only, sought to
compel the Company to make its books and records available for
inspection, so that Alpha could solicit proxies from other
stockholders in connection with the vote to approve the Proposed
Transaction.
The second action, a putative class action asserted against the
Company, certain directors on the OncoSec Board (the "Director
Defendants"), Sirtex and Grand Decade, sought, among other things,
a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and a
special meeting of OncoSec's shareholders seeking approval of the
Proposed Transaction, based on claims that the Director Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by (i) failing to make complete and
accurate disclosures concerning the Proposed Transaction, (ii)
adopting improper defensive measures to preclude the Company from
pursuing or receiving alternatives to the Proposed Transaction, and
(iii) running an inadequate "sales process" that failed to obtain
the highest value reasonably available.
This second action also asserted a claim against Sirtex and CGP for
aiding and abetting the Director Defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. On November 13, 2019, the two actions were
consolidated into a single proceeding, when the court so-ordered a
joint stipulation filed by the parties.
On February 6, 2020, the District Court judge denied Alpha's motion
for preliminary injunction in its entirety and allowed the special
meeting of shareholders to take place on February 7, 2020.
The Nevada Supreme Court then denied Alpha's request for an
emergency appeal. Alpha subsequently filed a stipulation dismissing
the action with prejudice, which the District Court entered on
March 5, 2020.
Since Alpha's cases were dismissed with prejudice, they cannot be
relitigated and the Company has no liability to Alpha with matters
addressed in these lawsuits.
Oncosec Medical Incorporated a late-stage biotechnology company
focused on designing, developing and commercializing innovative
therapies and proprietary medical approaches to stimulate and to
guide an anti-tumor immune response for the treatment of cancer.
The company is based in Pennington, New Jersey.
ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Kopanic & Cooper Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suits entitled, Kopanic v. GTx, Inc. et
al. and Cooper v. GTx, Inc. et al. (the "New York Actions"), are
still pending.
On March 6, 2019, the Company, then operating as GTx, Inc. ("GTx"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as
amended (the "Merger Agreement"), with privately-held Oncternal
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Private Oncternal") and Grizzly Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub").
Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Private
Oncternal, with Private Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). On June 7, 2019, the
Merger was completed. GTx changed its name to Oncternal
Therapeutics, Inc., and Private Oncternal, which remains as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, changed its name to
Oncternal Oncology, Inc.
Between April 10 and May 1, 2019, three putative class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware: Wheby v. GTx, Inc. et al.,
Miller v. GTx, Inc. et al., Tabb v. GTx, Inc. et al., and Living
Seas LLC v. GTx, Inc. et al. (collectively, the "Delaware
Actions").
On April 11 and 23, 2019, two putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:
Kopanic v. GTx, Inc. et al. and Cooper v. GTx, Inc. et al.
The Actions name as defendants the Company and its former board of
directors, and, in the case of the Wheby and Miller actions,
Private Oncternal and Merger Sub.
The Actions allege that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, in connection with the company's filing of the
Registration Statement in connection with the Merger.
The Delaware Actions have now been voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice: the Wheby action on June 12, 2019; the Miller action on
July 15, 2019; the Living Seas action on June 26, 2019; and the
Tabb action on October 21, 2019.
On September 16, 2019, Plaintiffs in the New York Actions filed an
amended complaint, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act related to the value GTx's stockholders
received in the Merger.
The complaint seeks damages and other unspecified relief.
On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, on January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed
their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, and on February
14, 2020, the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion
to dismiss. The defendants' motion to dismiss is pending.
The Company believes that the New York Actions are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend these actions.
Oncternal said, "The Company cannot predict the outcome of or
estimate the possible loss or range of loss from any of these
matters."
* * *
The lawsuit is now captioned, IN RE GTX, INC. SHAREHOLDERS
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-03239 (S.D.N.Y.). The Hon. Analisa
Torres oversees the case.
Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology
company, develops various product candidates for the treatment of
cancer. The Company is headquartered in San Diego, California.
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit Over Hamilton Merger Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit challenging a merger
transaction. The case is entitled, Paul Parshall v. Carol Coughlin
et al.
In connection with the pending merger acquisition of Hamilton, on
February 15, 2019, Orrstown filed with the SEC a proxy
statement/prospectus dated February 8, 2019 (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"). The Proxy Statement/Prospectus is the proxy
statement for Hamilton's special meeting of stockholders (the
"Special Meeting") to be held on March 20, 2019 to vote on the
approval of the merger, and is also Orrstown's prospectus with
respect to the shares of Orrstown's common stock to be issued to
Hamilton stockholders in the merger.
On March 5, 2019, Paul Parshall, a purported individual stockholder
of Hamilton, filed, on behalf of himself and all of Hamilton's
stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates,
a derivative and putative class action complaint in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Paul Parshall v.
Carol Coughlin et. al., naming each Hamilton director, Orrstown,
and Hamilton as defendants.
The Action alleges, among other things, that Hamilton's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Purported Class in
connection with the merger, and that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus
omitted certain material information regarding the merger.
Orrstown is alleged to have aided and abetted the Hamilton
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Action
seeks, among other remedies, to enjoin the merger or, in the event
the merger is completed, rescission of the merger or rescissory
damages; unspecified damages; and costs of the lawsuit, including
attorneys' and experts' fees.
Orrstown believes that the lawsuit is without merit as there are
substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims asserted and
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. It is not possible at
this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range
of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust
services in the United States. The company provides its banking and
bank-related services through branches located in Berks,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties
of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered
in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA May 3rd Amended Complaint Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the trial
court has granted The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority's (SEPTA's) motion for leave to file third amended
complaint.
On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against
the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and
executive officers (collectively, the "Orrstown Defendants").
The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest,
costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case
were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court
appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.
Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint
and the Orrstown Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss was originally due January
11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.
On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for
enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to
permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended
complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants'
defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion,
mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring
SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013
or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a
further enlargement of time.
On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or
before March 22, 2013.
On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expanded the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC ("SEK"), and the underwriters
of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock.
In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extends the
purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010
through April 5, 2012.
Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on
May 28, 2013, all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013, SEPTA filed its "omnibus"
opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August
23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of
their motions to dismiss.
On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the
Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be
heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions to
dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014.
The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.
On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA
either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by
the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand
on the amended complaint.
On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended
complaint to its motion.
Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint
are essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the
dismissed amended complaint.
The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the
Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged
failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk
management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012,
in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016,
the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed
its second amended complaint that same day.
On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016.
Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the
Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016 Order stays
all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing
of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of
the motions to dismiss.
The allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint disclosed the
existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry
regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC.
As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016,
on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with
the SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related
matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to
December 31, 2011.
As part of the settlement of the SEC's administrative proceedings
and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or
denying the SEC's findings, the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Executive
Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief Accounting
Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC.
The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1.0 million.
The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount
which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the
settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease
and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future
violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and
Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules
12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder. On September 27,
2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court a Notice of
Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with the SEC.
The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's cease-and-desist order and
briefly described what the Company believed were the most salient
terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement.
On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in
which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support
dismissal of the second amended complaint.
On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to
dismiss SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the
motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims against all
defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn,
Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied
the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims
against Quinn, Everly, and Embly.
On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order
establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15,
2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the
following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018,
and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day;
expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment
motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and
settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is
scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019.
On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA's motion for class
certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown Defendants'
opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA's reply due April 23,
2018.
On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a
Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a
conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and
possible revisions to the case schedule.
On February 12, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed their status
report to provide the Court with a summary of document discovery in
the case to date. On February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for a continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a
status conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case
schedule.
On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order continuing all case
management deadlines until further order of the Court.
On March 27, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference
with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery issues and case
deadlines. On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report.
On May 10, 2018, the Court held a follow-up telephonic status
conference at which the parties reported on the progress of
discovery to date. Party and non-party document discovery in the
case has continued. To date, SEPTA has taken a few non-party
depositions.
On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of
Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the
Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the
possession of Orrstown and third parties.
On August 23, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed a response to the
motion to compel. On August 30, 2018, the FRB filed an unopposed
motion to intervene in the Action for the purpose of opposing
SEPTA’s motion to compel, and on September 27, 2018, the FRB
filed its brief in opposition to SEPTA's motion.
On October 11, 2018, SEPTA filed its reply brief in support of its
motion to compel. On February 12, 2019, the Court denied SEPTA’s
motion to compel the production of CSI on the ground that SEPTA had
failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.
On April 11, 2019, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint seeks to
reassert the Securities Act claims that the Court dismissed as to
all defendants on December 7, 2016, when the Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second
amended complaint.
The proposed third amended complaint also seeks to reassert the
Exchange Act claims against those defendants that the Court
dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016. Defendants’ briefs
in opposition to SEPTA’s motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint were filed on April 25, 2019. SEPTA filed a reply brief
in further support of its motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on May 9, 2019.
On June 13, 2019, Orrstown filed a motion for protective order to
stay discovery pending resolution of SEPTA's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint. On June 19, 2019, former defendants
SEK and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public
offering joined in Orrstown's motion for protective order. On June
25, 2019, SEPTA filed its opposition to Orrstown's motion. On July
9, 2019, Orrstown filed a reply brief in further support of its
motion. On July 17, 2019, the Court entered an Order partially
granting Orrstown's motion for protective order, ruling that all
deposition discovery in the case is stayed pending a decision on
SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.
On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The third amended complaint is now the operative
complaint.
It reinstates the Orrstown Defendants, as well as SEK and the
underwriter defendants, previously dismissed from the case on
December 7, 2016.
The third amended complaint also revives the previously-dismissed
1933 Securities Act claim against the Orrstown Defendants and the
underwriter defendants. Under the Court-ordered briefing schedule,
all defendants' motions to dismiss the third amended complaint are
due March 27, 2020, SEPTA's oppositions are due May 1, 2020, and
defendants’ reply briefs are due May 22, 2020.
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust
services in the United States. The company provides its banking and
bank-related services through branches located in Berks,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties
of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered
in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.
OSMOTICA PHARMA: Still Defends Consolidated Tello & Shumacher Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a conslidated class action suit in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Somerset County.
On April 30, 2019, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc was served with a
complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica
Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County No. SOM-L-000540-19.
On May 10, 2019, a Complaint entitled Jeffrey Tello, et al., v.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey,
Somerset County No. SOM-L-000617-19 was filed in the same court as
the Shumacher action.
The complaints names the company, certain of its directors and
officers and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering as defendants in putative class actions alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement
and prospectus used for our initial public offering of ordinary
shares.
On July 22, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
consolidating the two actions, reiterating the previously pled
allegations and adding an additional individual defendant.
The company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intend to
vigorously defend against the action.
Osmotica said, "However, this litigation matter is still in an
early stage and there is no assurance that we will be successful in
our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action,
which could adversely affect our results of operations and
financial condition."
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical
company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes specialty
products that target markets with underserved patient populations.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in Bridgewater, New
Jersey.
OTAY MESA, CA: Alvarez Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LaRose, et al. The
case is styled as Jacinto Victor Alvarez, Joseph Broderick, Marlene
Cano, Jose Crespo-Venegas, Noe Gonzalez-Soto, Victor Lara-Soto,
Ramcharan Racquel, George Ridley, Michael Jamil Smith, Leopoldo
Szurgot, Jane Doe, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Petitioners v. Christopher J. LaRose, Senior Warden, Otay
Mesa Detention Center; Steven C. Stafford, United States Marshal
for the Southern District of California; Donald W. Washington,
Director of the United States Marshals Service; Respondents, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00782-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 25, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Mandamus & Other for Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Christopher J. LaRose was promoted to senior warden at Otay Mesa
Detention Center in July 2019, after serving as warden at Northeast
Ohio Correctional Center.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
Nicole D. Horowitz, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 315-1235
Email: nicole.horowitz@ropesgray.com
The Respondents are represented by:
US ATTORNEYS OFFICE, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
880 Front Street, Suite 6253
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 557-5662
Fax: (619) 557-7122
E-mail: Efile.dkt.civ@usdoj.gov
PAMIER PIZZA: Acero Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Acero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pamier Pizza Inc. and Mohammed Abrahim,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01773 (E.D. N.Y., April 12, 2020) seeks
unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the "spread-of-hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commission of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Pamier Pizza operates as Dream Pizza, a Pizzeria located at 3767
Junction Boulevard, Corona NY where Acero performed various kitchen
and cleaning duties usually in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they
worked, asserts the complaint. Defendants also failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiff the required "spread-of-hours" pay for any day in which
he had to work over 10 hours a day, it adds. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.FightForUrRights.com
PETROBRAS: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Netherlands
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in Netherlands, initiated
by the Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation.
On January 23, 2017, the Stichting Petrobras Compensation
Foundation ("Foundation") filed a class action before the district
court in Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, against Petrobras parent
company and Petrobras International Braspetro B.V. (PIBBV),
Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF), Petrobras Oil & Gas B.V.
(PO&G) and some former managers of Petrobras.
The Foundation allegedly represents the interests of an
unidentified group of investors and alleges that based on the facts
uncovered by the Lava Jato investigation the defendants acted
unlawfully towards investors. Based on the allegations, the
Foundation seeks a number of declaratory relieves from the Dutch
court.
The Company filed their first response to the claim on May 3, 2017
(first docket date), presenting the law firms that will defend
these companies and requesting a hearing to discuss some aspects of
the case.
On August 23, 2017, a hearing was held at the District Court in
Rotterdam to establish the timeframe for proceedings. Petrobras
(and other defendants) presented preliminary defenses on November
29, 2017 and the Foundation presented its response on March 28,
2018.
On June 28, 2018, a hearing was held for the parties to present
oral arguments.
On September 19, 2018, the Court rendered its interim decision in
the motion proceedings in which it accepted jurisdiction in most of
7 claims of the Foundation, without any assessment on the merits of
the case.
On April 16, 2019, a hearing was held to present oral arguments on
some procedural issues of this Class action.
On January 29, 2020, the Court determined that shareholders who
understand Portuguese and / or who bought shares through
intermediaries or other agents who understand that language, among
other shareholders, are subject to the arbitration clause provided
for in the Company's Bylaws, remaining out of the collective action
proposed by the Foundation.
The Court also considered the binding effect of the agreement
signed to close the United States' Class action.
Petrobras said, "In this way, the Foundation needs to demonstrate
that it represents a sufficient number of investors to justify
pursuing collective action in the Netherlands. The Foundation must
answer some questions raised by the Court by May 6, 2020. After the
presentation of the answers by the Foundation, Petrobras will have
12 weeks to respond."
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras explores for and produces oil
and natural gas. The Company refines, markets, and supplies oil
products. Petrobras operates oil tankers, distribution pipelines,
marine, river and lake terminals, thermal power plants, fertilizer
plants, and petrochemical units. The Company operates in South
America and elsewhere around the world.
PETROBRAS: Distribution of Lava Jato Settlement Funds Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
District Court overseeing the class action suit related to Lava
Jato has authorized the distribution of the settlement funds to
investors who presented eligible claims to the court-approved
claims administrator.
At the end of 2017, the company signed an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action that had been filed against it
and certain other defendants in connection with facts relating to
Lava Jato.
Under this settlement, the company (together with its subsidiary
Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF)) agreed to pay US$2,950 million
to resolve the claims in three installments of US$983 million, in
March, 2018, US$983 million, in June, 2018, and a further
installment of US$984 million, in January 2019.
Accordingly, the company charged US$3,449 million to its statement
of income for the last quarter of 2017 as other income and
expenses, taking into account the gross up of tax related to our
portion of the settlement.
Certain objectors appealed the District Court's June 22, 2018
decision to approve the class action settlement.
On August 30, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed that decision.
As of September 6, 2019, the settlement is no longer appealable and
is therefore final.
On September 24, 2019, the District Court authorized the
distribution of the settlement funds to investors who presented
eligible claims to the court-approved claims administrator.
The settlement of this class action does not constitute an
admission of guilt or of improper practices by Petrobras, which has
been recognized by the Brazilian authorities as a victim of the
events revealed through the Lava Jato investigation.
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras explores for and produces oil
and natural gas. The Company refines, markets, and supplies oil
products. Petrobras operates oil tankers, distribution pipelines,
marine, river and lake terminals, thermal power plants, fertilizer
plants, and petrochemical units. The Company operates in South
America and elsewhere around the world.
PINGTAN MARINE: Appeal in Zheng Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed the plaintiff's appeal
of the District Court's decision granting the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Zheng v. Pingtan Marine
Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo and Roy Yu.
On June 23, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint,
Zheng v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo and Roy Yu,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York alleging violations of Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The Complaint alleged that the Company and the executive officers
made materially false and misleading statements in filings with the
SEC regarding the Company's business operations.
The Complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Pingtan securities between
August 8, 2016 and May 10, 2017 and seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages.
An amended complaint, which expands the putative class period to
March 9, 2016 through May 10, 2017, was filed on May 29, 2018.
On April 11, 2019, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on August 14, 2019, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiff's
appeal of the District Court's ruling.
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. is a marine enterprise group
primarily engaging in ocean fishing through ITS operating
subsidiary, Fujian Provincial Pingtan County Ocean Fishing Group
Co., Ltd., or Pingtan Fishing, which is organized in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC")
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Joyce Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Chrystal Joyce, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C.,
Case No. 20-C-39-D, was removed from the West Virginia Circuit
Court, Raleigh County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia on April 23, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00286 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
P. O. Box 959
Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
Phone: (304) 574-2727
Fax: (304) 574-3709
Email: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew L. Ward, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL
P. O. Box 2185
Huntington, WV 25701
Phone: (304) 529-6181
Fax: (304) 522-4312
Email: matthew.ward@dinsmore.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Brandon Martinez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00583-NONE-JDP
(E.D. Cal., April 23, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
PRIMOHOAGIES FRANCHISING: Hozza Files Class Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRIMOHOAGIES
FRANCHISING, INC. The case is styled as Edward D. Hozza, III,
individually and on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. PRIMOHOAGIES FRANCHISING, INC., doing
business as: PRIMOHOAGIES, Case No. 1:20-cv-04966-RMB-JS (D.N.J.,
April 23, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
Primo Hoagies Franchising Inc. is a public relations and
communications company based out of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Michael Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (215) 399-4770
Email: achristina@lowey.com
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Allen Sues Over Lapsed Life Insurance Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY ALLEN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class v.
PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Tennessee Corporation; EMPIRE
GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Alabama Corporation, Case No.
(E.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that Protective refuses to
comply with mandatory provisions of the California Insurance Code,
as well as California common law regulating the lapse and
termination of life insurance policies.
As a result, Protective has failed to properly administer policies,
has failed to properly evaluate the status of payments due under
policies and failed to properly pay claims to beneficiaries for
policies lapsed or terminated for nonpayment of premium, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that she is a victim of Protective's
failures. She, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
brings this action to recover for the injuries and damages
resulting from these violations. She also requests injunctive
relief intended to ensure Protective's future compliance with these
important consumer safeguards and to prevent the ongoing violation
of these important statutes.
Protective Life is a financial service holding company in
Birmingham, Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against a putative class action suit
styled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290
Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and
variable universal life policies issued or administered by the
Company or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance
rates are to be determined based on expectations of future
mortality experience.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict
the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that might result from this litigation.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company,
provides financial services through the production, distribution,
and administration of insurance and investment products primarily
in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing,
Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset
Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based
in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a
subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation.
READING INTERNATIONAL: Brown & Wagner Class Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend class suits initiated by Taylor Brown and Peter M.
Wagner.
The Company is currently involved in two California employment
matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour
claims: Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al.
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern,
Case No. BCV-19-1000390 ("Brown v. RC," and the "Brown Class Action
Complaint" respectively) and Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual,
vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO.
37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL ("Wagner v. CEI," and the "Wagner
Individual Complaint" respectively).
Brown v. RC was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual
action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but
not served until June 24, 2019.
These lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys' fees, relating to
alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal
periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay
upon termination and wage statements violations. Wagner v. CEI was
filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in June 2019.
The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on the
company by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698,
et seq) (the "Wagner PAGA Claim") purportedly asserting in a
representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute,
overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the
Brown Class Action Complaint.
On March 6, 2020, Mr. Wagner filed a putative class action against
Reading International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc., and
Consolidated Entertainment, LLC, substantially overlapping the
claims in the Brown Class Action Complaint.
That complaint has not yet been served. Neither plaintiff has
specified the amount of damages sought.
Reading International said, "The Company is investigating and
intends to vigorously defend the allegations of the Brown Class
Action Complaint, the Wagner Individual Complaint and the Wagner
PAGA Claim and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate. These matters are in their early stages, and the
putative class action has not been certified. As these cases are in
early stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the
litigation or the range of potential loss, if any; however, the
Company believes that its potential liability with respect to such
matters is not material to its overall financial position, results
of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, the Company has not
established a reserve for loss in connection with these matters."
Reading International, Inc. (RDI), is focused on the development,
ownership, and operation of entertainment and real estate assets in
the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, RDI
operates through two segments: cinema exhibition and real estate.
The cinema exhibition segment operates multiplex cinemas. RDI's
real estate segment includes real estate development and the rental
of retail, commercial and live theater assets. The Company is
based in Culver City, California.
RECOVERY MANAGEMENT: Gibbs Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recovery Management
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Angelica Gibbs, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers v.
Recovery Management Services, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02013-ER (E.D.
Pa., April 24, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Recovery Management Services is a full service collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad St., SUITE 203-C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Email: nl@zemellawllc.com
REGIONAL FINANCE: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Olesinski
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KATHY OLESINSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. REGIONAL FINANCE
CORPORATION OF WISCONSIN, d/b/a REGIONAL FINANCE, Case No.
2:20-cv-00604 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
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
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
RENTGROW INC: Faces Poffenroth FCRA Class Suit in W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rentgrow Inc. The
case is styled as Kyle Poffenroth, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Rentgrow Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00530-JCC (W.D. Wash., April 7,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
RentGrow, Inc., is a provider of online tenant screening services
for independent rental owners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin H Richman, Esq.
Theo Benjamin, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 N. LaSalle St., 14th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 589-6377
Email: brichman@edelson.com
tbenjamin@edelson.com
- and –
Timothy W Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
EMERY REDDY
600 Stewart St., Ste. 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Bids to Nix Klapper Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the requests seeking
dismissal of the consolidated "Takata Class Action" and "Klapper
Class Action" remains pending.
On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-02293. The complaint asserts violations of federal securities
laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders
that purchased stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15,
2018.
The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false
and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings
regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency
business.
The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and
fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.
Two additional, nearly identical complaints were subsequently filed
by Richard Roys and Bruce Greenawalt in the United District States
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Roys v. Riot Blockchain
Inc., et al., Case No. 9:18-cv-80225) and the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (Greenawalt v. Riot
Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00440), respectively.
On March 27, 2018, the court closed the Roys case for
administrative purposes. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Greenawalt filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of his action, which the court
entered on the same date.
On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint
against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-8031).
The complaint contained substantially similar allegations and the
same claims as those filed by Mr. Takata, and requests damages in
unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and
other unspecified relief.
On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order
consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class
action. The court also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and
Motely Rice as Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action.
Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2019.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 18, 2019. In lieu of
opposing defendants' motions to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff filed
another amended complaint on May 9, 2019.
Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss the amended complaint
starting on September 3, 2019.
Briefing on the motions to dismiss has been completed.
Riot Blockchain said, "Subject to the outcome of the pending
motions, defendants intend to continue to vigorously contest Lead
Plaintiff's allegations."
Because this litigation is still at this early stage, we cannot
reasonably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the
magnitude of such an outcome, if any.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Riot Blockchain, Inc. focuses on building, supporting, and
operating blockchain technologies, primarily through its
cryptocurrency mining operations and other developed businesses, as
well as joint ventures, acquisitions, and targeted investments in
the sector. The company was formerly known as Bioptix, Inc. and
changed its name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. in October 2017. Riot
Blockchain, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Castle Rock,
Colorado.
SAKS INC: Beachum Sues Over Employee No-poach Policy
----------------------------------------------------
Anja Beachum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Saks Incorporated, Saks & Company LLC, Saks
Fifth Avenue LLC, Louis Vuitton USA Inc., Fendi North America,
Inc., Loro Piana & Co. Inc., Gucci America, Inc., Prada USA Corp.,
and Brunello Cucinelli, USA, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01769
(E.D. N.Y., April 10, 2020), seeks to recover actual, compensatory
and treble damages, as well as costs, attorneys' fees and interest
and to obtain injunctive relief for injuries caused under Section 1
of the Sherman Act.
Saks is a premier nationwide department store chain that sells
luxury goods and apparel brands where Beachym was employed by the
Saks Defendants in Troy, Michigan as a Luxury Retail Employee
between approximately February 2016 and September 2016, and between
the summer of 2018 and December 2019 working the Saks
"Contemporary" department. She alleges that Defendants agreed among
themselves not to hire each other's Luxury Retail Employees thus
reducing said employees' labor mobility and suppressing their
compensation to levels materially lower than they would have been
in a competitive market. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Radice, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel: (646) 245-8502
Fax: (609) 385-0745
Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Michaela Wallin, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: ecramer@bm.net
sschalman-bergen@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
mwallin@bm.net
- and -
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 559-9745
Email: dwalker@bm.net
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ware Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tawanna Ware filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit styled Tawanna Ware, et al. v. Samsung Electronics
Company, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00886, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
The nature of suit is stated as tort product liability.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed on February 2, 2018, and assigned to Judge
Sharon Johnson Coleman, then referred to Magistrate Judge Michael
T. Mason.
The appellate case is captioned as Tawanna Ware, et al. v. Samsung
Electronics Company, Ltd., et al., Case No. 20-1641, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TAWANNA WARE and ANTHONY WARE, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by:
Thomas C. Cronin, Esq.
CRONIN & COMPANY, LTD
161 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 201-7100
E-mail: tcc@cronincoltd.com
– and –
Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL S. ROTHSTEIN
626 N.E. First Street
Gainesville, FL 32601-0000
Telephone: (352) 376-7650
E-mail: psr@rothsteinforjustice.com
Defendants-Appellees SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LIMITED, and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INCORPORATED, et al., are represented
by:
Martin G. Durkin, Jr., Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
150 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 263-3600
E-mail: martin.durkin@hklaw.com
SIERRA INCOME: Anderson Merger Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------
Roger Anderson et al. v. Stephen R. Byers et al., Index No.
652006/2019, remains pending, according to Sierra Income
Corporation in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.
On August 9, 2018, the Company entered into definitive agreements
to acquire Medley Capital Corporation (MCC) and Medley Management
Inc. (MDLY). Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of August 9, 2018, by and between MCC and the Company (the "MCC
Merger Agreement"), MCC would, on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the MCC Merger Agreement, merge with and
into the Company, with the Company as the surviving company in the
merger (the "MCC Merger").
On April 5, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was
commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, by alleged stockholders of Sierra Income Corporation,
captioned Roger Anderson et al. v. Stephen R. Byers et al., Index
No. 652006/2019. Named as defendants are Stephen R. Byers, Oliver
T. Kane, Valerie Lancaster-Beal, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Sierra
Income Corporation, and Sierra Management, Inc.
The complaint alleges that the individuals named as defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders of Sierra Income
Corporation in connection with the proposed mergers of Medley
Capital Corporation with and into Sierra Income Corporation and
Medley Management Inc. with and into Sierra Management, Inc., and
that Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Sierra Income Corporation, and Sierra
Management, Inc. aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.
The complaint seeks to enjoin the proposed mergers or, in the
alternative, to recover money damages in an unspecified amount.
On November 8, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
reiterated the allegations of the original complaint and added
allegations concerning the new mergers, including that the new
mergers are "even more financially unfavorable to Sierra" than the
old mergers and that under the new mergers, and that "Sierra would
actually be paying more for MDLY . . . when all consideration is
taken into account," based on the erroneous allegation that Sierra
is the party responsible for bearing the cost of the MCC settlement
fund.
Plaintiffs also allege that Brook Taube and Seth Taube exercised
control over Sierra and breached fiduciary duties owed to Sierra in
that capacity.
Pursuant to a stipulation entered by the Court on February 5, 2020,
the plaintiffs are required to advise the defendants within twenty
days of the filing of a definitive proxy statement relating to the
Amended MCC Merger Agreement and the Amended MDLY Merger Agreement
whether they intend to file a second amended complaint.
Defendants’ time to respond shall be 45 days following the later
of the plaintiffs either filing a second amended complaint or
notifying the defendants that they do not intend to file a second
amended complaint.
A preliminary conference was scheduled for April 21, 2020.
The defendants believe the claims asserted in the action are
without merit and they intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Sierra Income Corporation operates as an investment company. The
Company invests in automotive, insurance, real estate,
construction, energy, and other retail sectors. Sierra Income
serves customers in the United States. The company is based in New
York, New York.
SIERRA INCOME: Appeal From Contingent Fee Award Sought
------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Income Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Medley Capital
Corporation (MCC) and the Company have filed a notice of appeal
with the Delaware Supreme Court from those provisions of the Order
and Final Judgment with respect to a Contingent Fee Award.
On August 9, 2018, the Company entered into definitive agreements
to acquire Medley Capital Corporation (MCC) and Medley Management
Inc. (MDLY). Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of August 9, 2018, by and between MCC and the Company (the "MCC
Merger Agreement"), MCC would, on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the MCC Merger Agreement, merge with and
into the Company, with the Company as the surviving company in the
merger (the "MCC Merger").
On February 11, 2019, a purported stockholder class action relating
to the MCC Merger was commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery
by FrontFour Capital Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd.
(together, "FrontFour"), captioned FrontFour Capital Group LLC, et
al. v. Brook Taube et al., Case No. 2019-0100 (the "Delaware
Action"), against defendants Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel,
Mark Lerdal, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Arthur S.
Ainsberg, MDLY, the Company, MCC, MCC Advisors LLC, Medley Group
LLC, and Medley LLC.
The complaint, as amended on February 12, 2019, alleged that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
MCC's stockholders in connection with the MCC Merger, and that
MDLY, the Company, MCC Advisors LLC, Medley Group LLC, and Medley
LLC aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaint sought to enjoin the vote of MCC's stockholders on
the MCC Merger and enjoin enforcement of certain provisions of the
MCC Merger Agreement.
The Delaware Court of Chancery held a trial on the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction and issued a Memorandum Opinion
(the "Decision") on March 11, 2019.
The Delaware Court of Chancery denied FrontFour's requests to (i)
permanently enjoin the MCC Merger and (ii) require MCC to conduct a
"shopping process" for MCC on terms proposed by FrontFour in its
complaint. The Delaware Court of Chancery held that MCC's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the MCC Merger,
but rejected FrontFour's claim that the Company aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duties.
The Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the defendants to issue
corrective disclosures consistent with the Decision, and enjoined a
vote of MCC's stockholders on the MCC Merger until such disclosures
had been made and stockholders had the opportunity to assimilate
that information.
On March 20, 2019, another purported stockholder class action was
commenced by Stephen Altman against Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff
Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, Mark Lerdal, and
John E. Mack in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Altman v.
Taube, Case No. 2019-0219 (the "Altman Action").
The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to stockholders of MCC in connection with the vote of MCC's
stockholders on the proposed mergers.
On April 8, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a
stipulation consolidating the Delaware Action and the Altman
Action, designating the amended complaint in the Delaware Action as
the operative complaint, and designating the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Action and their counsel the lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel, respectively.
On December 20, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered into
the Delaware Order approving the settlement of the Delaware Action
(the "Settlement").
Pursuant to the Settlement, MCC agreed to certain amendments to (i)
the MCC Merger Agreement and (ii) the MDLY Merger Agreement, which
amendments are reflected in the Amended MCC Merger Agreement and
the Amended MDLY Merger Agreement.
The Settlement also provides for, if the MCC Merger is consummated,
the creation of a settlement fund, consisting of $17 million in
cash and $30 million of the Company's common stock, with the number
of shares of the Company's common stock to be calculated using the
pro forma NAV of $6.37 per share as of June 30, 2019, which will be
distributed to eligible members of the Settlement Class (as defined
in the Settlement).
In addition, in connection with the Settlement, on July 29, 2019,
MCC entered into a Governance Agreement with FrontFour Capital
Group LLC, FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd., FrontFour Capital Corp.,
FrontFour Opportunity Fund, David A. Lorber, Stephen E. Loukas and
Zachary R. George, pursuant to which, among other matters,
FrontFour is subject to customary standstill restrictions and
required to vote in favor of the MCC Merger at a meeting of
stockholders to approve the Amended MCC Merger Agreement.
The Settlement also provides for mutual releases between and among
FrontFour and the Settlement Class, on the one hand, and the Medley
Parties, on the other hand, of all claims that were or could have
been asserted in the Delaware Action through September 26, 2019.
The Delaware Court of Chancery also awarded attorney's fees as
follows: (i) an award of $3,000,000 to lead plaintiffs' counsel and
$75,000 to counsel to plaintiff Stephen Altman (the "Therapeutics
Fee Award") and $420,335 of plaintiff counsel expenses payable to
the lead plaintiff's counsel, which were paid on December 23, 2019,
and (ii) an award that is contingent upon the closing of the
proposed merger transactions (the "Contingent Fee Award"),
consisting of:
a. $100,000 for the agreement by the Company's board of
directors to appoint one independent director of MCC who will be
selected by the independent directors of the Company on the board
of directors of the post-merger company upon the closing of the
Mergers; and
b. the amount calculated by solving for A in the following
formula:
Award[A]=(Monetary Fund[M]+Award[A]-Look Through[L]) x
Percentage[P]
Whereas
A - shall be the amount of the Additional Fee (excluding the
$100,000 award for the agreement by the Company's board of
directors to appoint one independent director of MCC who will be
selected by the independent directors of the Company on the board
of directors of the post-merger company upon the closing of the
Mergers);
M - shall be the sum of (i) the $17 million cash component of the
Settlement Fund and (ii) the value of the post-merger company stock
component of the Settlement Fund, which shall be calculated as the
product of the VPS and 4,709,576.14 (the number of shares of
post-merger company's stock comprising the stock component of the
net settlement amount);
L - shall be the amount representing the estimated value of the
decrease in shares to be received by eligible class members arising
by operation of the change in the "Exchange Ratio" under the
Amended MCC Merger Agreement, calculated as follows:
L = ((ES x 68 percent) - (ES x 66 percent)) * VPS
Where:
ES shall be the number of eligible shares;
VPS
shall be the pro forma NAV per share of the post-merger company's
common stock as of the closing as reported in the public disclosure
filed nearest in time and after the closing (the "Closing NAV
Disclosure"); and
P shall equal 0.26
The Contingent Fee Award is contingent upon the closing of the MCC
Merger. Payment of the Contingent Fee Award will be made in two
stages. First, within five (5) business days of the establishment
of the Settlement Fund, MCC or its successor shall (i) pay the
plaintiffs' counsel an estimate of the Contingent Fee Award (the
"Additional Fee Estimate"), less twenty (20) percent (the
"Additional Fee Estimate Payment"), and (ii) deposit the remaining
twenty (20) percent of the Additional Fee Estimate into escrow (the
"Escrowed Fee").
For purposes of calculating such estimate, MCC or its successor
shall use the formula set above, except that VPS shall equal the
pro forma NAV of the post-merger company's common stock as reported
in the public disclosure filed nearest in time and prior to the
closing (the "Closing NAV Estimate").
Second, within five (5) business days of the Closing NAV Disclosure
(as defined in the Order and Final Judgment), (i) if the Additional
Fee is greater than the Additional Fee Estimate Payment, an amount
of the Escrowed Fee shall be released to plaintiffs' counsel such
that the total payments made to plaintiffs' counsel equal the
Additional Fee and the remainder of the Escrowed Fee, if any, shall
be released to MCC or its successor, (ii) if the Additional Fee is
less than the Additional Fee Estimate Payment, plaintiffs' counsel
shall return to MCC or its successor the difference between the
Additional Fee Estimate and the Additional Fee and the Escrowed Fee
shall be released to MCC or its successor, or (iii) if the
Additional Fee is equal to the Additional Fee Estimate Payment, the
Escrowed Fee shall be released to MCC or its successor.
On January 17, 2020, MCC and the Company filed a notice of appeal
with the Delaware Supreme Court from those provisions of the Order
and Final Judgment with respect to the Contingent Fee Award.
Sierra Income Corporation operates as an investment company. The
Company invests in automotive, insurance, real estate,
construction, energy, and other retail sectors. Sierra Income
serves customers in the United States. The company is based in New
York, New York.
SIERRA INCOME: NY Counsels Reserve Rights to Seek Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Income Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No.
650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook Taube, et al.,
Index No. 650510/2019, have informed the New York Supreme Court
that they reserve the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees on
account of their purported contributions to the settlement of the
Delaware Action, which the defendants reserve the right to oppose.
On August 9, 2018, the Company entered into definitive agreements
to acquire Medley Capital Corporation (MCC) and Medley Management
Inc. (MDLY). Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of August 9, 2018, by and between MCC and the Company (the "MCC
Merger Agreement"), MCC would, on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the MCC Merger Agreement, merge with and
into the Company, with the Company as the surviving company in the
merger (the "MCC Merger").
On January 25, 2019, two purported class actions were commenced in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the
"New York Supreme Court"), by alleged stockholders of Medley
Capital Corporation (MCC), captioned, respectively, Helene Lax v.
Brook Taube, et al., Index No. 650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino,
et al. v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No. 650510/2019 (together with
the Lax Action, the "New York Actions").
Named as defendants in each complaint are Brook Taube, Seth Taube,
Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E.
Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T. Allorto, Jr., MCC, MDLY, the Company
and Merger Sub.
The complaints in each of the New York Actions allege that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger of MCC with and into the
Company, and that the other defendants aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts were sought.
On December 20, 2019, the Delaware court entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement of the FrontFour Capital Group
LLC, et al. v. Brook Taube et al., Case No. 2019-0100 (Delaware
Action).
The release in the Delaware Action also operates to release the New
York Actions are without merit.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs in the New York Actions have
informed the New York Supreme Court that they reserve the right to
seek an award of attorneys' fees on account of their purported
contributions to the settlement of the Delaware Action, which the
defendants reserve the right to oppose.
Sierra Income Corporation operates as an investment company. The
Company invests in automotive, insurance, real estate,
construction, energy, and other retail sectors. Sierra Income
serves customers in the United States. The company is based in New
York, New York.
SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Siefert Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Siefert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-03726
(C.D. Cal., April 23, 2020), is brought to challenge the
Defendant's policies and practices of failing to pay overtime
compensation to the Plaintiff as required by the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff also seeks claims for the Defendant's failure to
compensate the Plaintiff the additional wages required by the New
York spread-of-wages law; to provide an uninterrupted meal period
as required by NYLL; to remit all service fee surcharges to the
Plaintiff; to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked; to
remit the entirety of the service fee surcharges to non-managerial
service workers; to provide the Plaintiff accurate, itemized wage
statements as required by the NYLL; and to provide accurate and
proper written notice as required by the NYLL.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied payment for
all hours worked, including gratuity payments, regular wages owed,
and overtime wages. The Defendant imposes mandatory "service
charge" surcharges on the sale of food and beverages to their
customers, but fails to distribute the total proceeds of those
service fee surcharges to non-managerial service employees as
required by New York law. This conduct violates NYLL.
The Defendant also maintains a longstanding policy and practice of
failing to properly compensate non-exempt employees for work
performed during unpaid meal periods. These policies deny the
Plaintiff and Class members payment for all hours worked, including
overtime wages owed under the NYLL. These policies also violate New
York law mandating meal breaks during shifts lasting more than six
hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as bartender and server by the Defendant
at the Templeton Landing.
The Defendant operates various restaurant locations and
event-hosting spaces throughout the United States, including
Templeton Landing, which is located in Buffalo, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Kristabel Sandoval, 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
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com
SPIROS PARTNERS: Appeals Decision in Bailey Suit to 5th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Spiros Partners, Limited, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER BAILEY, On Behalf of
Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. SPIROS PARTNERS, LTD.
d/b/a RICK'S CABARET SAN ANTONIO, Case No. 5:19-CV-866, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated female exotic dancers as "independent
contractors" rather than as employees.
As a result of this misclassification, the Defendant failed to pay
her and other similarly situated female exotic dancers required
wages under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Ms. Bailey
alleges.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Spiros Partners, Limited,
Case No. 20-50318, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents JENNIFER BAILEY, On Behalf of Herself and
Others Similarly Situated, et al., are represented by:
Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, P.L.L.C.
1701 N. Market Street
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 288-8519
– and –
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG, L.L.C.
8757 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Defendant-Petitioner SPIROS PARTNERS, LIMITED, doing business as
Rick's Cabaret San Antonio, is represented by:
William King, Esq.
WALLACE & ALLEN, L.L.P.
440 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002-1652
Telephone: (713) 227-1744
Email: wking@wallaceallen.com
SXSW LLC: Bromley Sues in W.D. Texas Alleging Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SXSW, LLC, et al. The
case is styled as Maria Bromley, Kleber Pauta, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SXSW, LLC, SXSW
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00439-LY (W.D. Tex., April 24,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract for breach of
contract.
SXSW is best known for its conference and festivals that celebrate
the convergence of the interactive, film, and music
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean E. Breen, Esq.
Randy Howry, Esq.
HOWRY BREEN & HERMAN, LPP
1900 Pearl St.
Austin, TX 78705-5408
Phone: (512) 474-7300
Fax: (512) 474-8557
Email: sbreen@howrybreen.com
rhowry@howrybreen.com
SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the consolidated class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, is still pending.
On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the
"Securities Law Action").
After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017.
On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Before that
motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between October 28, 2014 and June 13,
2017.
On June 28, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, without
prejudice, allowing lead plaintiff to leave to amend its complaint.
On August 14, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements of material information
concerning the Company's financial results, business operations,
and prospects.
On October 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.
The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit and
intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, costs.
Synchronoss said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time
and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of Things (IoT) platforms, products, and solutions in
North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and
the Asia Pacific. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
TELARIA INC: Faces Class Suits Over Rubicon Project Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Telaria, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is defending
against class action lawsuits related to its merger with The
Rubicon Project, Inc.
On December 19, 2019, the company announced a stock-for-stock
merger with The Rubicon Project, Inc., or Rubicon Project which
will create a combined company offering a single partner for
transacting CTV, desktop display, video, audio, and mobile
inventory across all geographies and auction types. The company
believes this combination will create the world's largest
independent sell-side advertising platform with scale, capabilities
and solutions exceeding those offered by competitors.
Together, the combined company will be an essential omni-channel
partner for buyers to reach target audiences, optimizing the supply
path with industry-leading transparency, robust support for
identity solutions and brand-safe premium inventory.
Between February 5 and February 28, 2020, seven lawsuits were filed
by purported stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger
with Rubicon Project. Two lawsuits were brought as putative class
actions and are captioned Sabatini v. Telaria, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-00219 (D. Del. filed Feb. 13, 2020) and Carter v. Telaria,
Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-01576 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 21, 2020).
Five lawsuits were brought by the plaintiffs individually and are
captioned Stein v. Telaria, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-01010
(S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 5, 2020); Lin v. Telaria, Inc. et al., No.
1:20-cv-01277 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 13, 2020); Melool v. Telaria,
Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00836 (E.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 15, 2020);
Robinson v. Telaria, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-01380 (S.D.N.Y.
filed Feb. 18, 2020); and Wu v. Telaria, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01790
(S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 28, 2020) (collectively, the "Complaints").
The Complaints name the Company and each member of its board of
directors as defendants.
The Sabatini complaint additionally names Rubicon Project and
Madison Merger Corp. as defendants.
The Complaints allege violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder
against all defendants, and assert violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.
The Sabatini complaint additionally alleges a claim under Section
20(a) of the Exchange against the Rubicon Project and Merger Sub.
The Stein and Carter complaints additionally allege a violation of
17 C.F.R. Section 244.100 against all defendants.
The plaintiffs contend that the Telaria Definitive Proxy Statement
filed as part of the Rubicon Project's registration statement on
Form S-4 on January 30, 2020 and amended on February 7, 2020,
omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the
Merger.
The Complaints seek injunctive relief, rescission or rescissory
damages, and an award of plaintiffs’ costs, including attorneys'
fees and expenses.
The Lin and Sabatini complaints also seek dissemination of a proxy
statement that discloses certain information requested by those
plaintiffs.
The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Complaints are
without merit.
Telaria, Inc. provides a fully programmatic software platform for
premium publishers to manage and monetize their video advertising.
The company's platform is built specifically for digital video and
to support the unique requirements of connected TV, or CTV, and
over-the-top content. The company is based in New York, New York.
TIAA FSB: Faces Chader Suit in New York Over Real Property Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TIAA, FSB. The case
is styled as Amel Chader, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TIAA, FSB f/k/a EverBank Financial Corp, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01912 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other real property.
TIAA, FSB, provides banking services. The Company offers online
banking, business loan, saving accounts, debit card, mobile
banking, checking accounts, personal loan, e-statement, direct
deposit, real estate loan, and insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Windber Hospital Sues Over Denied Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Windber Hospital d/b/a Chan Soon Shiong Medical Center, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:20-cv-00080-KRG (W.D. Pa.,
April 23, 2020), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with
respect to insurance coverage for losses caused by the COVID-19
virus and the governmental orders entered in connection therewith.
According to the complaint, there existed, in full force and
effect, a Deluxe Property Policy (No. P-630-4C211340-TIL-19)
("Travelers Policy") issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff,
providing, inter alia, property, business, personal property,
business income, extra expense, continuation, civil authority and
additional coverages applicable to the losses clamed in this
action.
The Travelers Policy was in effect and provided coverage for the
period October 19, 2019, to October 19, 2020. The Travelers Policy
is an "All Risks" policy which provides coverage for losses to the
insured premises unless specifically excluded. The Plaintiff
contends that the Travelers Policy does not exclude the losses
caused by the Coronavirus Pandemic. The Plaintiff insists that the
Travelers Policy provides coverage for the losses incurred by the
Plaintiff, Medical Center, as a result of the Coronavirus Pandemic
and the actions of the government in response thereto.
As a result of the impact of the COVID-19 virus and the referenced
Orders of the Governor, the Plaintiff has been ordered to close its
business and forced to furlough employees, thereby incurring loss.
The Plaintiff has made claim upon the Defendant for recovery of
losses caused by the COVID-19 virus and the referenced Orders.
The Defendant has wrongfully denied the claims the Plaintiff for
recovery of damages caused by the COVID-19 virus and referenced
Orders, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff, therefore, is
entitled to an Order enjoining the Defendant from denying coverage
to insureds for business income, extra expense, contamination,
civil authority and other coverages for losses caused by the
COVID-19 virus and referenced Orders.
Plaintiff, Chan Soon-Shiong Medical Center at Windber is a
corporation organized and existing under the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 350-6600
- and -
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIT KRAMER P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 232-6300
- and -
John P. Goodrich, Esq.
JACK GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES
429 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburg, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 261-4663
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 238-1700
TURNKEY VACATION: Cahill Sues in Texas Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TurnKey Vacation
Rentals, Inc. The case is styled as Shane Cahill, Nye Peterson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TurnKey Vacation Rentals, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00441-LY (W.D.
Tex., April 24, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract for breach of
contract.
TurnKey Vacation Rentals markets and manages premier vacation
rental homes in top U.S. destinations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean E. Breen, Esq.
Randy Howry, Esq.
HOWRY BREEN & HERMAN, LPP
1900 Pearl St.
Austin, TX 78705-5408
Phone: (512) 474-7300
Fax: (512) 474-8557
Email: sbreen@howrybreen.com
rhowry@howrybreen.com
TYPEFORM US: Alves Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------
Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Typeform US, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-03365 (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Typeform US, LLC is a company offering data collection products and
tools designed to collect information from individuals to get more
marketing leads, generate an audience, or other tools designed to
collect or analyze data. It attempted to contact Alves in his
cellular telephone via unsolicited text messages in an attempt to
solicit its services without express consent to be contact in this
manner, the complaint says. [BN]
Alves is represented by:
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: nicholas@kazlg.com
- and -
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
UNIT CORP: Appeal in Panola Independent School Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal made by the
plaintiffs in the class action suit entitled, Panola Independent
School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No.
CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, is still
pending.
Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs and
are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for
which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty.
The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's
exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting
post-production costs or marketing related fees.
Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of
persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production.
The company had asserted several defenses including that the
deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. The company had also
asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to
the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,
deductions are taken for each lease.
On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class. On May 11, 2012 the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The
Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and on
October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied.
On January 22, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a
smaller class of royalty owners than their first attempt. Since
then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to
just include royalty owners under certain leases in Latimer, Le
Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.
On July 29, 2019, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs' second
motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs are appealing the order denying class certification.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and
Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Cockerell Oil Properties Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Unit Petroleum Company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Cockerell Oil
Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. 16-cv-135-JHP,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
On March 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Cockerell Oil Properties,
Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma.
The company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma.
The Plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum wrongfully failed to pay
interest with respect to late paid oil and gas proceeds under
Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act.
The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorney fees.
Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of royalty and working
interest owners in our Oklahoma wells.
The company had asserted several defenses including that the case
cannot be properly certified as a class action because of the wide
variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty payment
was timely made or has accrued interest under Oklahoma law.
Further, Plaintiff's requests for relief beyond payment of interest
allegedly due are barred by statute.
The company had filed a summary judgment motion as to named
Plaintiff's individual claims.
On February 28, 2020, the Court granted the company's a summary
judgment on several of the Plaintiff's individual clams, including
standing, but found that some claims presented fact issues. The
Plaintiff has filed a motion with the Court asking it to reconsider
its ruling.
Unit said, "The issue of class certification will not be heard, if
at all, until the issue of the named Plaintiff's standing and the
pending fact issues are finally resolved."
Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and
Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
UNIT CORP: Court Certifies Class in Chieftain Royalty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court overseeing the
case, Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company, has
entered its order certifying a class.
On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v.
Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff
alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay royalties on
natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises.
The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are
or were royalty owners in our Oklahoma wells.
Unit has numerous defenses including that it has fulfilled its
lease royalty obligations with respect to gas consumed as fuel.
As to the propriety of class certification, we are defending on the
grounds that the class involves thousands of different leases that
have to be individually examined and construed, making class-wide
liability determinations impossible.
On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff moved for class certification. On
February 6, 2020, the court entered its order certifying the
class.
The company had appealed the court's order. It is not known when
the appeal will be acted on by the Oklahoma Appellate court.
Adjudication of the merits of Plaintiff's claims is stayed until
the appeal of the class certification order is decided.
Unit said, "We continue to vigorously defend against each of the
pending claims. At this time, we are unable to express an opinion
with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide
an estimate of potential losses, if any."
Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and
Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
USPACK SERVICES: Court Stays Class Suit Pending Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARK KENDUS and KEITH KENDUS
v. USPACK SERVICES LLC and US PACK MED LLC, Case No.
6:20-cv-432-Orl-78DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Wendy W. Berger
entered an order:
1. granting Defendants' motion to compel. The Plaintiffs
shall submit their claims to individual arbitration in
accordance with the parties' Contractor Agreements;
2. staying case pending arbitration. On or before October 13,
2020, and every 180 days thereafter, the Defendants shall
file a report as to the status of the arbitration
proceedings. Additionally, the Defendants shall notify
this Court within 14 days of the final resolution of the
arbitration proceedings;
3. denying all other pending motions as moot; and
4. directing the Clerk to administratively close the case.
The Court said, "the Defendants seek to enforce the class action
waivers contained within the arbitration provisions and request
that this Court compel individual arbitrations. The Plaintiffs
have not directly disputed the validity of the class action
waivers, and this Court sees no basis to deny enforcement.
Accordingly, the Court will compel individual arbitrations in
accordance with the parties' agreements."
US Pack operates as a transportation company.[CC]
VERVENT INC: Students Slam Illegal Student Debt Collections
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jody Aliff, Marie Smith, Heather Turrey, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vervent, Inc.
(f/k/a First Associates Loan Servicing, LLC), Activate Financial,
LLC, David Johnson, Christopher Shuler, Lawrence Chiavaro, Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00697 (S.D.
N.Y., Cal. April 10, 2020), seeks injunctive relief including an
injunction pursuant to the McGill Rule (McGill v. Citibank, N.A.),
actual and/or treble damages plus reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and under California
state law.
Plaintiffs are former students who were left heavily indebted for
post-secondary education by the now-bankrupt company ITT Education
Services, Inc. under a student loan program that Deutsche Bank
developed exclusively for ITT. Said program was to generate cash
for ITT as an independent source of tuition revenue. First
Associates Loan Servicing (now known as "Vervent, Inc.") assumed
the role of loan servicer and collected the loans on behalf of ITT
(as Guarantor) and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as
Indenture Trustee and Secured Party. In September 2016, it filed a
chapter 7 bankruptcy but loan collections continued through
Activate Financial LLC, a wholly-owned collection company of First
Associates. It began sending out collection notices to borrowers
from 2018-2019, many of whom no longer had enforceable repayment
obligations due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
TIMOTHY G. BLOOD, Esq.
LESLIE E. HURST, Esq.
ALEKSANDR J. YARMOLINETS, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 338-1100
Fax: (619) 338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
lhurst@bholaw.com
ayarmolinets@bholaw.com
- and -
Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
John J. Grogan, Esq.
LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC
1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 320-5660
Fax: (215) 320-5703
Email: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com
jgrogan@langergrogan.com
- and -
Paul Arons, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS
685 Spring Street, Suite 104
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
Tel: (360) 378-6496
Fax: (360) 378-6498
Email: lopa@rockisland.com
VINNY'S OF CARROLL: Montoya Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Camilo Montoya, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VINNY'S OF CARROLL GARDENS RESTAURANT & LUNCHEONETT,
INC. d/b/a VINNY'S OF CARROLL GARDENS, and VINCENZO CATALDO,
Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-01904 (E.D.N.Y., April 24,
2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
premium pay owed to the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid minimum
wages for all hours worked and was not paid overtime premiums for
hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. The Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation of one and one-half
times his regular hourly rate for hours over 40 each week is and
has been a corporate policy of the Defendants which applies to
non-management employees throughout the Class Period.
The Plaintiff is a former kitchen employee at the Defendants'
restaurant.
The Defendants have been in the food service business and is doing
business as "Vinny's of Carroll Gardens."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Goetz Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 19, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Goetz
v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company.
Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed
September 8, 2017), a putative class action in which plaintiff, a
participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants
in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that
"contract with (Voya) for recordkeeping and other services."
Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the
plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and
excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed
materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee
disclosures to conceal its excessive fees.
The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the
United States. The company was formerly known as ING Life Insurance
and Annuity Company and changed its name to Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company in September 2014. The company is
based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company operates as a subsidiary of Voya Institutional Plan
Services, LLC.
WAITR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Halley and Montgomery Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waitr Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend suits entitled, Halley, et al vs. Waitr Holdings Inc. and
Montgomery v. Waitr Holdings Inc.
In February 2019, the Company was named a defendant in a lawsuit
titled Halley, et al vs. Waitr Holdings Inc. filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on
behalf of plaintiff and similarly situated drivers alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and in March
2019, the Company was named a defendant in a lawsuit titled
Montgomery v. Waitr Holdings Inc. filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of
plaintiff and similarly situated drivers, alleging violations of
FLSA and Louisiana Wage Payment Act.
Waitr believes that this case lacks merit and that it has strong
defenses to the claims and is vigorously defending the suit.
Waitr Holdings Inc. operates an online food ordering and delivery
platform, connecting local restaurants with hungry diners in cities
across the United States. The company is based in Lafayette,
Louisiana.
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Revised Judgment Favors Unit
--------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that in the class action
suit related to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a trial court has
vacated a July 5, 2017 arbitration award in its entirety, and
issued a revised judgment in Waterstone's favor.
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation was a defendant in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.
The plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation
violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment
agreements.
On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award finding
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages,
overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages
under the FLSA.
On December 8, 2017, the District Court entered a judgment against
Waterstone in the amount of $7,267,919 in damages to Claimants,
$3,298,851 in attorney fees and costs, and a $20,000 incentive fee
to Plaintiff Herrington.
The judgment was then appealed by Waterstone to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.
On October 22, 2018, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling vacating
the District Court's order enforcing the arbitration award.
It found that Plaintiff Herrington had an enforceable class action
waiver in her arbitration agreement, and remanded the case to the
District Court.
On April 25, 2019, the District Court held that Plaintiff
Herrington's claims must be resolved through single-plaintiff
arbitration.
As a result, it vacated the July 5, 2017 arbitration award in its
entirety, and issued a revised judgment in Waterstone's favor.
Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates
through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The
company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed
its
WEOKIE FEDERAL: Garrett Sues Over Collection of NSF and OD Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY GARRETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WEOKIE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. CJ-2020-1857
(Okla. Dist., April 14, 2020), seeks monetary damages, restitution
and declaratory relief from Weokie arising from the alleged unfair
and unconscionable assessment and collection of fees, including
non-sufficient funds fees and overdraft fees, which Weokie charge
when it returns certain checking account debits.
The Plaintiff contends that in violation of its contract and
reasonable consumer understanding, Weokie often charges more than
one fee on the same transaction, even though the contract
states--and reasonable consumers understand--that the same
transaction can only incur a single fee, either, an OD Fee if it is
paid or an NSF Fee if it is not paid. The Plaintiff argues that
these double and triple penalties crush account-holders already
struggling to make ends meet.
Ms. Garrett says she and other Weokie customers have been injured
by Weokie's practices.
Weokie is a credit union with over $1 billion in assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Waller, Esq.
J. David Jorgenson, Esq.
WALLER JORGENSON, PLLC
401 S. Boston Avenue, Suite 500
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 629-3350
Facsimile: (918) 699-0325
E-mail: mwaller@wjwattorneys.com
djorgenson@wjwattorneys.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: Jkaliel@kalielplic.com
sgold@kalielplic.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
Daniel Tropin, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
tropin@kolawyers.com
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Schwoerer Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Schwoerer, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v.
THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00375-PRW (W.D.
Okla., April 23, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours a week but the Defendant did not pay them overtime.
Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant
classified the Plaintiff and its other Inspectors as independent
contractors and paid them a flat amount for each day worked without
overtime compensation. The Defendant never paid the Plaintiff or
the Putative Class Members a guaranteed salary.
Plaintiff Schwoerer worked for Williams as a Utility Inspector in
Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.
Williams bills itself as "committed to being the leader in
providing infrastructure that safely delivers natural gas products
to reliably fuel the clean energy economy."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, 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
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ZUMIEZ INC: Appeal in Herrera Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the appeal from a court
ruling in the class action suit initiated by Alexia Herrera is
ongoing.
A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the
company in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento
Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.
Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October
2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal
left the case.
The putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleges,
among other things, various violations of California's wage and
hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting
time.
In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff’s claims are based.
In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October
2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for
judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
petition was then granted in January 2018.
The company's opening appellate brief was filed in June 2018 and
the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed in August 2018.
The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate
brief was filed in September 2018 and oral arguments were completed
in February 2019.
On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to file a
supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief was filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The company then filed its supplemental reply brief to the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019.
Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable
to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome
is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible
loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do
so."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer
providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and
accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed
at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and
private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web
site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington.
[^] Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners
on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May 28
at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV
Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win over
the client. Register now and learn the following:
-- Primary elements in responding to a lead
-- How to customize scripts for case, demographics
-- Developing effective screening criteria
-- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first
contact
-- Minimize lead loss
-- Publicity vs. conversion budgets
Benefits:
-- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI
-- Maximize the size of your class
-- Reduce acquisition cost per client
Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will
present what his company has learned after completing millions of
new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies.
Thurs., May 28
2 p.m. Eastern
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV
*********
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 ***