/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200605.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 5, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 113
Headlines
ACCELERATED SERVICING: Faces Mack FDCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
AKAZOO SA: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Cambridge Retirement Suit Voluntarily Dropped
ALEXION PHARMA: Litigation over SOLIRIS Sales Practices Ongoing
AMBRY GENETICS: McMurphy Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
AMERICAN AIRLINES FCU: Varga Sues Over Wrongful Overdraft Charges
AMERICAN WATER: Bid for Class Certification in Jeffries Pending
AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Bruce Class Suit Still Underway
AMPIO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Shi Suit Taken Under Submission
ANAPTYSBIO INC: Investors' Suit over Etokimab Drug Reports Pending
ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Negligence
APPLE INC: Sued Over 2016 MacBook Pro Display Cable Defect
ARVEST CENTRAL: Faces Lembeck Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees
ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE: Aylen Sues Over Denied Coverage
AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Bahamas Surgery Case Remains Pending
AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Remains Pending
AXOGEN INC: Einhorn Securities Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
BAIDU INC: Schall Law Firm Securities Class Action
BAYOU STEEL: Nabor Suit Seeks 60-Day Back Pay Under WARN Act
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Remaining $2 Million Paid to Settlement Fund
BERKSHIRE HILLS: SI Financial Shareholder Appeals Case Dismissal
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Silulu v. Trustee Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
BOULDER HEALTHCARE: Webb Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Disclosures
CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action Still Ongoing in Illinois
CHINA: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Coronavirus Cover-Up
CHINA: US Virus Patients, Businesses File Coronavirus Lawsuits
CRAFT BREW: Continues to Defend Suits Over Anheuser-Busch Merger
CVR REFINING: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action
CVS HEALTH: Faces Analog Insulin Products-Related Suit
CVS HEALTH: Faces EpiPen Product Class Suit
CVS HEALTH: LTC Related Class Suits Ongoing
CVS HEALTH: Trial in Corcoran Suit Ongoing
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Virginia Pending
E-HOUSE (CHINA): Schall Files Class Action Lawsuit
EASTER SEALS: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Markley Suit Alleges
EHEALTH INC: Rosen Reminds of June 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ELIXINOL LLC: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Class Certified in "Dougherty" Case
ETOH MONITORING: Faces Meade Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Louisiana
EXTENDED STAY: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California
EXTREME SERVICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Troiano Alleges
FGL HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Sabatini Suit
FGL HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
FGL HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 1
FLORIDA: Frustrations Over DEO Web Site Lead to Class Action
FRONTIER COMMS: Bid for Leave to Amend Class Suit Denied
FUNDMERICA INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
GABRIEL WORTMAN: Nova Scotia Shooting Victims File Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: NHTSA Won't Recall 56MM Takata Airbag Inflators
GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement of Economic Loss Claims Has Initial OK
GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Drugs Price-Fixing Suit Ongoing
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits over HIV Drugs Ongoing
GROUPON INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
GROUPON INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Ongoing
HELZBERG'S DIAMOND: Misclassifies Store Managers, Martinez Says
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Faces Payne Suit Over Failure to Refund Fees
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Pending
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Fergus Suit Still Pending
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Related Fees
INFOSYS LIMITED: New York Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
JACOB KOSTECKI: Faces Class Action Over Canceled Conference
JACOBS ENGINEERING: Roane County Resident's Class Suit Ongoing
JAMIL LIQUORS: Ramirez Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Cambridge Retirement System Suit Ongoing
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Trial in Molded Doors Suit Set for January 2021
K ALLRED OILFIELD: Kerr Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & NMMWA
KAY IVEY: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Dixon Suit
LAYMA LLC: Faces Salinardi Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Accardo Class Action Now Concluded
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Shron Suit Pending
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Dismiss Erceg Class Suit Pending
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Dismiss Veal Class Action Pending
LOANCARE LLC: Faces Pritchard Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees
LOUISIANA: COVID-19 Policies Violate Constitution, JH Suit Says
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss Local 322 Suit Pending
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss MSP Recovery Suit Granted
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
MANNKIND CORP: Order Denying Bid to Amend Complaint Appealed
MASONITE INT'L: Virginia Court Extends Deadlines by 60 Days
MATTEL INC: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of California Suit
MATTEL INC: Faces Whistleblower Class Suits
MATTEL INC: Still Defends Class Suits over Fisher-Price Sleeper
MERCEDES-BENZ: Two UK Law Firms Mull Diesel Emission Group Case
MERCK & CO: Faces Bravecto Related Suit
MERCK & CO: Trial in Suit Over Zetia Sales Rescheduled to 2021
MOHAMMAD AL-MOJIL: Clyde & Co. Attorneys Discuss Class Action
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Satam Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
ORCHARD VILLA: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Privacy Breach
PHOENIX TREE: Thornton Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
POPE RESOURCES: Laidlaw Suit over Merger Deal Dismissed
POPE RESOURCES: Thompson Class Suit over Merger Deal Dismissed
QUALITY ECO: Alley Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
R&B GRINDING CO: McWhorter Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Still Defends 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints
RED ROBIN: Settlement Reached in Vigueras & Vasquez Suits
REDAL RECYCLING: Rivera Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RUBICON PROJECT: Telaria Merger-Related Suit Dismissed Voluntarily
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Class Suit Over Tableau Merger Underway
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Salinger Class Suit Closed
SC JOHNSON: Toth Sues Over False Marketing of Cleaning Products
SCWORX CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
SIMON PROPERTY: Cafe Gelato Sues Over Illegal Electricity Mark-up
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Buttermilk, Hobson File Class Action Suit
SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refunds of Campus Fees
SPARK ENERGY: Mediation in Roland Suit to Begin July 10
SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Agreement Presented in Veilleux Suit
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Suits Over Accounting Review Ongoing
SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Loftus Class Action
TIKTOK INC: Accused of Capturing and Retaining Biometrics Illegally
TOYOTA MOTOR: Finkelstein Files Class Suit Over Faulty Fuel Pumps
TRIFECTA VENTURES: Faces Mount Suit Over Unwelcome Telemarketing
TURNING POINT: Nulph Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NJWHL
UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Coronavirus-Related Suit at Tacoma Jail
UNITED STATES: ICE's Coronavirus Mitigation Lacking, Suit Claims
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Weiss Sues Over Not Getting Services' Value
VBI VACCINES: Israel Class Action Stayed
VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
VERDE ENERGY: Jurich Class Action Dismissed
VOLKSWAGEN: Fuel Economy Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Colorado Ongoing
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Litigation
VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Goetz Class Action in Delaware
VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Zhou Class Suit in Colorado
WELBILT INC: Dismissal Order in Schlimm Suit Challenged
WELLS FARGO: Miller Labor Suit Moved From California to S.D.N.Y.
WEST VIRGINIA: Certification of Ballot Commissioners Class Sought
WORK AND INCOME: May Face Suit Over Covid-19 Redundancy Payout
XPERI CORP: Faces Rosenblatt Class Action in Delaware
ZOOM VIDEO: Ohlweiler Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
[*] Calif. AG Issues Price Gouging Admonitions Amid Class Action
[*] COVID-19 Pandemic May Increase Demand for Litigation Funding
[*] Kelley Drye Attorneys Discuss Pandemic-Related Class Actions
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $790MM Claim Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,181 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $42.2MM A&E Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 50,000 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 128 Pending Talc Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health US Seeks to Dismiss Talcum Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 187 Cases Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrue $34MM for DuPont Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $68.1MM Accrued Liability at April 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $98MM Non-PCC Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $1.06BB Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FCX Unit Still Defends Talc Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PI Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had 13,000 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Luna v. Johnson & Johnson Nixed without Prejudice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,800 PI Cases at March 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Subsidiary Had 596 New Claims in 1Q 2020
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Liable for Cases at March 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 119 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Company Defends Talcum Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Faces Various Lawsuits at March 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 6,000 Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Defends Suits at March 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Technologies Defends Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Face Suits at March 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ViacomCBS Had 31,080 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Faces PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner-Lambert Defends Claims vs. American Optical
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 1,025 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $73.9MM Libby Costs at March 31
*********
ACCELERATED SERVICING: Faces Mack FDCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accelerated Servicing
Group LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Letitia Mack,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Accelerated Servicing Group LLC; DNF Associates LLC; Brightwater
Capital LLC; and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-05455-RBL (W.D.
Wash., May 14, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronald B. Leighton.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit.
The Defendants are debt collection agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Clark Brubaker, Esq.
BRUBAKER LAW GROUP PLLC
14506 NE 184th PL
Woodinville, WA 98072
Telephone: (206) 335-8746
E-mail: michael@brubakerlawgroup.com
AKAZOO SA: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Akazoo S.A. (NASDAQ: SONG) between September 11, 2019
and April 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Akazoo investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Akazoo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1843.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) Akazoo overstated its revenue, profits, and cash
holdings; (2) Akazoo holds significantly lesser music distribution
rights than it has stated and implied; (3) as opposed to Akazoo's
continued statements, it does not operate in 25 countries; (4)
Akazoo has a significantly smaller user base than it states; (5)
Akazoo has closed its headquarters and other offices around the
world; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According
to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research
firm.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 23,
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-1843.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, contact
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Rosen Law Firm
Toll free: 866-767-3653
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
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. [GN]
AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Cambridge Retirement Suit Voluntarily Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akcea Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiff in City
of Cambridge Retirement System v. Crooke, et al., C.A. No.
2019-0905, voluntarily dismissed its claims.
On November 11, 2019, a purported Company stockholder filed the
Delaware Action in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned City of
Cambridge Retirement System v. Crooke, et al., C.A. No. 2019-0905.
The plaintiff in the Delaware Action asserted claims against (i)
current and former members of the Company's board of directors; and
(ii) Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The plaintiff purported to assert these claims derivatively on
behalf of Akcea, which was a nominal defendant in the Delaware
Action, as well as directly against the Defendants on behalf of a
purported class of the Company's stockholders.
The plaintiff in the Delaware Action asserted that the Defendants
breached the Company's fiduciary duties in connection with the
licensing transaction that the Company and Ionis entered into
regarding TEGSEDI and AKCEA-TTR-LRx.
The plaintiff also asserted an unjust enrichment claim against
Ionis in connection with the transaction.
The company and the Defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint and, on January 31, 2020, filed briefs in support of
their respective motions to dismiss.
On April 7, 2020, the plaintiff in the Delaware Action voluntarily
dismissed its claims. That dismissal was with prejudice only as to
the individual stockholder that filed the Delaware Action.
Akcea said, "It is therefore possible that a similar action could
be filed at a later date prior to the expiration of the applicable
statute of limitations."
Akcea Therapeutics, Inc. is a commercial stage biopharmaceutical
company developing and commercializing transformative medicines to
treat patients with serious and rare diseases. Its large and
advancing pipeline of medicines in late-stage development and
medicines on the market allows the company to capitalize on its
strengths in supporting patients, healthcare professionals and
caregivers in treating rare and serious diseases. The company is
based in Boston, Massachusetts.
ALEXION PHARMA: Litigation over SOLIRIS Sales Practices Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit related to SOLIRIS sales practices.
On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about SOLIRIS.
On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July
14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action
complaint against the Company and seven current or former
employees.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 12,
2017. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants filed a reply brief in
further support of their motion on December 28, 2017.
On March 26, 2019, the court held a telephonic status conference.
During that conference, the court informed counsel that it was
preparing a ruling granting the defendants' pending motion to
dismiss. The court inquired of plaintiffs' counsel whether they
intended to seek leave to amend their complaint, and indicated that
if they wished to file a second amended complaint, they would be
allowed to do so.
On April 2, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs until May 31, 2019
to file a second amended complaint, thereby rendering moot
defendants' pending motion to dismiss.
On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
against the same defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants
engaged in securities fraud, including by making misrepresentations
and omissions in its public disclosures concerning the Company's
SOLIRIS sales practices, management changes, and related
investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26, 2017, and that
the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported disclosure of
the alleged fraud.
The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary relief,
unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 2, 2019; plaintiffs' filed their opposition to that motion
on October 2, 2019; and defendants' filed their reply in further
support of their motion on November 16, 2019.
Alexion said, "Given the early stage of these proceedings, we
cannot presently predict the likelihood of obtaining dismissal of
the case (or the ultimate outcome of the case if the motion to
dismiss is denied by the court), nor can we estimate the possible
loss or range of loss at this time."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The
company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
AMBRY GENETICS: McMurphy Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE MCMURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION, Case No.
8:20-cv-00904-JLS-JD (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2020), arises out of a
January 2020 cyberattack and data breach at AMBRY's medical
facilities that resulted in unauthorized access to patient data for
several days between January 22-24, 2020.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately
233,000 Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of
the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack, says the complaint. In
addition, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
information was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data
Breach.
The Plaintiff contends that the information compromised in the Data
Breach includes customers' names, medical information, information
related to customers' use of AMBRY's services, Social Security
numbers, and other protected health information as defined by the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and
additional personally identifiable information and protected health
information that AMBRY collected and maintained.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address the Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they
collected and maintained.
Founded in 1999, AMBRY is a private company in the health sector
primarily focused on genetic testing. In 2017, AMBRY was acquired
by Japanese office equipment manufacturer Konica Minolta Inc. in a
deal valued at up to $1 billion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 640-1160
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
gklinger@masonllp.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES FCU: Varga Sues Over Wrongful Overdraft Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA VARGA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04380-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2020), alleges
that the AAFCU wrongfully charged the Plaintiff and the Class
Members fees related to their checking accounts.
The Plaintiff contends that the AAFCU's conduct has the
overwhelming common denominator of breaching its members' contracts
and violating laws so as to maximize AAFCU's fee income. This
conduct includes assessing an overdraft fee or NSF fee on
transactions when by the Defendant's own calculations there was
enough available money in the checking account to cover the
transaction at issue when authorized and the money was specifically
sequestered for that transaction but would be assessed an overdraft
fee anyway.
This class action seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief due to AAFCU's policy and practice to maximize
the fees it imposes on members.
Ms. Varga is a resident of Marina del Rey, California, and had a
checking account with AAFCU.
AAFCU is a credit union in Colorado, United States. AAFCU provides
comprehensive financial products and services, and online financial
management systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taras Kick, Esq,
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 395-2988
Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Telephone: (732) 636-8000
Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
AMERICAN WATER: Bid for Class Certification in Jeffries Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion for
class certification in Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American
Water Company, is pending.
On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The
water main is part of West Virginia-American Water Company's
(WVAWC's) West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar.
The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for
up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning
hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same
day, the repair developed a leak.
On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was
restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers,
and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning.
The second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was
usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill. The system was
reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000
customers while a final repair was completed safely on June 30,
2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015 to all
customers affected by this event.
On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West
Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit
Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents
and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result
of the Dunbar main break.
The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to
supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the
sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the
design, maintenance and operation of the water system.
The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf
of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and
loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and
wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a
large outage.
In October 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the Jeffries plaintiffs' counts alleging statutory
and common law tort claims.
Furthermore, WVAWC asserted that the Public Service Commission of
West Virginia, and not the court, has primary jurisdiction over
allegations involving violations of the applicable tariff, the
public utility code and related rules.
In May, 2018, the court, at a hearing, denied WVAWC's motion to
apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and in October, 2018, the
court issued a written order to that effect.
On February 21, 2019, the court issued an order denying WVAWC's
motion to dismiss the Jeffries plaintiffs' tort claims. On August
21, 2019, the court set a procedural schedule in this case,
including a trial date of September 21, 2020. Discovery in this
case is ongoing.
On February 4, 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification on the issues of breach of contract and
negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages
and a multiplier for those damages if imposed.
A hearing on class certification was held on March 11, 2020,
followed by a status conference on April 7, 2020. This motion
remains pending.
The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious
defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. WVAWC
is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. The
Company cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if
any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of such losses
related to this proceeding.
American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.
AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Bruce Class Suit Still Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants'
motion seeking dismissal of the class action suit entitled, Bruce,
et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al., is still
pending.
On September 12, 2019, Tennessee-American Water Company, a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company ("TAWC"), experienced a break of a
36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations
or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water
notice.
TAWC repaired the main break by early morning on September 14,
2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon on September
15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on
September 16, 2019.
On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v.
American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit
Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and
American Water Works Service Company, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company (collectively, the "Tennessee-American
Water Defendants"), on behalf of an alleged class of individuals or
entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a
result of the Chattanooga main break (the "Tennessee Plaintiffs").
The complaint alleges breach of contract and negligence against the
Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy
of piercing the corporate veil.
The Tennessee Plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified alleged
damages for wage losses, business and economic losses,
out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property and
annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.
On November 22, 2019, the Tennessee-American Water Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and, with respect to the Company, for
lack of personal jurisdiction. A hearing on this motion was held on
February 18, 2020.
The motion to dismiss remains pending.
The Tennessee-American Water Defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action
complaint, and they are vigorously defending themselves against
these allegations.
American Water Works said, "The Company cannot currently determine
the likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any
loss or a range of such losses related to this proceeding."
American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.
AMPIO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Shi Suit Taken Under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jun Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:18-cv-07476 (C.D. Calif.), Judge R Gary Klausner ruled on May
26 that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, calendared
for hearing on June 1, 2020, has been taken under submission and
off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary.
The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly
submitted pleadings.
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that on August 25, 2018, a
purported stockholder of the Company commenced a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, captioned Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-07476.
Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting material
information regarding the AP-003 Phase III clinical trial of
Ampion.
The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 14, 2017
through August 7, 2018.
Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action seeks unspecified damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
On September 27, 2019, the Court presiding over the Securities
Class Action issued an order appointing a Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in late 2019. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 10,
2020.
On March 26, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to
the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company filed a reply to the
Plaintiff's brief in opposition on April 27, 2020.
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development of therapies for the treatment of prevalent
inflammatory conditions in the United States. The company is
developing compounds that decrease inflammation by inhibiting
specific pro-inflammatory compounds. Its product pipeline includes
Ampion, an intra-articular injection for the treatment of
osteoarthritis of the knee. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is
headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.
ANAPTYSBIO INC: Investors' Suit over Etokimab Drug Reports Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anaptysbio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative shareholder class action suit
related to its drug etokimab.
On March 25, 2020, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against the company and three of its current
or former officers.
The complaint purports to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired the
company's common stock between October 10, 2017 and November 7,
2019, or the Class Period.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants
made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding the
company's etokimab drug that artificially inflated the company's
stock price.
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount, as well as costs and expenses.
Anaptysbio said, "We believe that the claims in the action are
without merit."
Anaptysbio, Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company
developing first-in-class immunology therapeutic product candidates
to patients. We are focused on emerging immune control mechanisms
applicable to inflammation and immuno-oncology indications. The
company is based in San Diego, California.
ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Negligence
------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Comstock, writing for Recordonline.com, reports that in
Christmas each year, Joseph Maglioli would dress up as Santa Claus
to bring smiles to the faces of children in his neighborhood in
upstate New York.
With a personality defined by family and friends as warm, funny and
generous, Maglioli was widowed with six children and living out his
final years at Andover Subacute Rehabilitation Center.
But as an 85-year-old resident in the facility, Maglioli became
victim of the novel coronavirus, and on April 9, he succumbed to
the disease. His death came eight days before the state launched
its investigation into the facility after 17 bodies were found
piled in a makeshift morgue.
Now, Maglioli's sons, Bernard and Dante Maglioli, who are
co-administrators of their father's estate, are leading a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all residents in Subacute I or II who
died as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. The suit, filed in state
Superior Court in Newton on April 28, alleges gross negligence,
negligence, wrongful death and medical malpractice.
Filed by attorney Daniel Marchese, the lawsuit names the following:
Andover Subacute I and II facilities; Altitude Investments, an
Illinois-based health care investment firm; Alliance Healthcare,
which is leasing the property from Altitude and manages the
facility's day-to-day operations; and Chaim "Mutty" Scheinbaum and
his co-partner, Louis Schwartz, who run Alliance Healthcare.
The latest data released from the state shows 71 residents in the
state's largest long-term care facility, with a combined total of
702 beds in Subacute I and II buildings, have died due to the
virus.
But the suit indicates it represents Maglioli and "at least
83-plus" patients who died in the facilities due to COVID-19 since
January.
Class action suits are filed to allow several persons, sometimes up
to thousands, to join and take legal action against a person or
entity if they all suffered the same or similar injuries. It helps
to consolidate attorneys, witnesses, evidence and other aspects for
efficiency and financial purposes.
Negligence, pain and suffering
The 17-page suit details the spread of the novel coronavirus in the
United States, paying particular focus to the vulnerable
populations in long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes and
assisted living communities.
As the virus spread rapidly across the nation, with a nursing home
in Washington state tied to deaths that began in early February,
the suit stated that the defendants "despite these facts, failed to
take the proper steps to protect the residents and/or patients at
their facilities from the COVID-19 virus."
The suit alleges, management of Subacute I and II provided masks to
registered nurses, but not to others who interacted with patients,
including housekeepers, recreation therapists and nursing
assistants, among others, according to the suit. Visitors and
employees who worked near or with residents did not have their
temperatures taken nor were they required to wear masks, staff
failed to properly diagnose residents in a timely manner, staff
failed to exercise a degree of skill, diligence and care commonly
exercised by doctors in like circumstances and failed to properly
treat residents' conditions.
Due to failure to protect the residents, Maglioli and at least 83
patients, "and there may be more," have died, the suit claims.
The suit states that the defendants' conduct was "grossly reckless,
willful and wanton in the face of the COVID-19 outbreak and
pandemic."
The defendants "owed a duty to Joseph Maglioli and the residents .
. . to keep them safe from outside diseases and/or outbreaks of
viruses," the suit claims.
"As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and
professional malpractice of the defendants . . . residents caught
the COVID-19 infection and thereafter sustained great pain and
suffering of the mind and body, incurred medical expenses in order
to correct the conditions caused by the defendants . . . and were
otherwise damaged and died," the suit states.
The suit indicates that once medical records are obtained from
defendants, which will include comprehensive lists of diagnostic
tests and medications provided to each residents, additional
parties may be included in the suit.
Penalty lifted?
Federal surveyors with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, or CMS, completed their investigation of Andover Subacute
II on April 21 and imposed a civil penalty against the facility of
$220,235.
The inspection of the facility found residents were in "immediate
jeopardy" between April 6 and April 20, with fines accrued for each
of the 15 days. The 36-page report, obtained by the New Jersey
Herald, stated that due to the facility's non-compliance, it "has
caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm impairment or
death to residents."
However, a spokesperson with Andover Subacute II suggested on May 9
that while news of the report just came to light, Andover Subacute
II had already developed a remediation plan and implemented it
quickly. As a result, CMS has lifted the large monetary penalty,
she said.
She later deferred additional comment on the fines to CMS, which
did not immediately return comment by deadline.
A May 6 letter from CMS to Andover Subacute II administration
states that the facility had yet to reach compliance and that
beginning April 21, the facility had been accruing $110 penalties
daily. The penalties, the letter states, would continue until the
facility reached compliance and indicated that should they not
reach it by Oct. 21, their provider agreement with CMS would be
terminated.
Daunting inspection report
The report painted a picture of a troubled facility that appeared
to be crumbling from the inside in the midst of the COVID-19
outbreak.
Thermometers used to take staff temperatures failed to work,
residents pending coronavirus testing were rooming with otherwise
healthy residents, staff members failed to remove gloves or cover
their faces with masks and medical records were not filled out.
Between April 1 and April 16, surveyors discovered that temperature
logs to monitor residents for coronavirus were missing on 18 out of
28 work shifts.
A resident who had fallen on a wet floor on April 6 -- but not
logged by a nurse until April 10 -- and suffered a head laceration
was found dead on April 11. A required neurological check of the
resident following an unwitnessed fall every four hours stopped on
April 8, temperatures logs of the patient remained blank for the
five days leading up to his death and his advanced directive for
life sustaining treatment was nowhere to be found.
Gov. Phil Murphy, during his daily coronavirus briefing on May 8,
responded to the federal inspection report of Subacute II, stating,
"The inconsistent performance by the facility's operators in the
long-term care facility space is extremely disappointing."
In a letter to Murphy and Persichilli, Gwen Orlowski, the executive
director of Disability Rights New Jersey, a legal protection and
advocacy group designated by the state to assist persons with
disabilities, indicated that organization has launched its own
investigation into the deaths at Subacute I and II facilities.
Among a list of interventions, Orlowski asks the state's
administration to consider the removal of management and the
appointment of a receiver to remedy the conditions.
Murphy dispatched four members of the New Jersey National Guard to
Subacute II on May 7; and an additional 20 were sent on May 8.
Persichilli has indicated the Guard-persons will be there seven
days a week, assisting with non-medical tasks.
While a few soldiers in face masks were seen departing the facility
early on May 8, Andover Subacute II was quiet, except for a sound
system that could be heard coming from the facility playing Bon
Jovi's "Dead or Alive." [GN]
APPLE INC: Sued Over 2016 MacBook Pro Display Cable Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
Parris Law Firm on May 10 disclosed that a nationwide class action
lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California alleging
Apple, Inc. knowingly concealed a defect within their 2016 MacBook
Pro display cable. Dubbed "Flexgate" by customers, the lawsuit
alleges Apple's thin and flexible cable rubs against internal
hardware every time the laptop is opened and closed. This
consistent rubbing causes the cable to fail over time.
According to the complaint, Apple is accused of knowingly selling
and marketing a defective product it claimed was groundbreaking, of
selling an extended warranty plan which at best covers only a
portion of the repair costs (and more often covering none of the
repairs), and creating a deeply flawed repair program that failed
to fix countless damaged laptops.
"Imagine spending more than $2,500 on a laptop only for it to fail
shortly after the manufacturer's warranty expires," said attorney
R. Rex Parris, who is also the mayor of Lancaster. "What's even
more appalling is Apple requiring customers to spend an additional
$600 to $850 to replace the screen," Parris added.
To address consumer outcry, Apple launched the "MackBook Pro
Display Backlight Service Program" where it agreed to only replace
the cables on 13-inch MacBook Pro 2016 models, and refund those who
already paid to have their cables fixed. However, the program did
not cover the more expensive 15-inch model and 13-inch MacBook Pros
sold after 2016.
"Apple's 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Pros all shared the same
product defect, but Apple only included their less expensive
product line within the repair program," PARRIS attorney Alexander
R. Wheeler added.
Lead Plaintiff, Mahan Taleshpour, purchased a new 2016 MacBook Pro
for roughly $2,500 in April of 2017 and by January of 2020, the
display screen started to fail. On March 18, of 2020 Mahan took
his laptop to an Apple Authorized Service Provider who then told
him AppleCare did not cover the repair and would therefore cost him
$850. [GN]
ARVEST CENTRAL: Faces Lembeck Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE LEMBECK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ARVEST CENTRAL MORTGAGE CO., Case No. 3:20-cv-03277-AGT
(N.D. Cal., May 14, 2020), alleges that Arvest Central routinely
violates the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Unfair Competition Law and breaches the uniform terms of borrowers'
mortgages by charging and collecting illegal processing fees when
borrowers pay their monthly mortgage by phone or online.
The Plaintiff contends that Arvest charges homeowners a fee of $10
for making mortgage payments over the phone with a customer service
representative, and $5 for making mortgage payments online or over
the phone with an Interactive Voice Response system.
Lembeck paid these Pay-to-Pay Fees, and she brings this class
action lawsuit to recover the unlawfully charged Pay-to-Pay Fees.
Arvest Central is a servicer of residential mortgages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
V. Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
vprentice@tzlegal.com
- and -
Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
James L. Kauffman, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
475 14th Street, Suite 610
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 207-8633
Facsimile: (510) 463-0241
E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com
jkauffman@baileyglasser.com
ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE: Aylen Sues Over Denied Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------
Karla Aylen, DDS PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aspen American Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00717 (W.D. Wash., May 13, 2020), seeks
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorney fees and costs and such further and other relief for
breach of contract.
Karla Aylen owns and operates a dental practice located at 11066
5TH Ave NE #208 Seattle, Washington 98125. She was prohibited from
practicing dental services except for urgent and emergency
procedures amidst the closure of all non-essential businesses
during the COVID19 pandemic.
Aspen American Insurance Company is an insurance carrier. Aylen
took out a business insurance from them to maintain income in case
of an insured loss. However, Aylen was denied for business
interruption claims due to closure. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Maureen Falecki, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alison Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Fax: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Bahamas Surgery Case Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the class action
suit entitled, Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH
(C.D. Cal.), remains pending.
The company has an Indemnification Obligation for the matter styled
Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and
Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), filed
on October 29, 2014.
In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action
asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") in connection with the
company's marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns.
On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $3.9 million in
compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and
$350.0 million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for
$0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $100.0 million in punitive damages.
Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim and
request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the
plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff's request for
restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief.
On May 25, 2017, the company filed post-trial motions seeking,
among other things, to have the award of punitive damages reduced.
On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and against the company and Kimberly-Clark that
substantially reduced the punitive damages awards.
The judgment against the company is now $0.4 million in
compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in
punitive damages. The judgment against Kimberly-Clark is now $3.9
million in compensatory damages, $2.4 million in pre-judgment
interest, and $19.4 million in punitive damages.
On April 12, 2018, the company filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Avanos said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the
Bahamas matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.
AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal in the class
action suit entitled, Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E.
Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., remains pending.
The company was served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson
v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et
al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016.
In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against
the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief
Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a).
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and
effectiveness of the company's MicroCool gowns and thereby
artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during the
respective class periods.
The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark
securities who subsequently received Avanos securities is February
25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for
purchasers of Avanos securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29,
2016.
On February 16, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the case. On
March 30, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
and entered judgment in its favor.
On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from the
Judgment and for Leave to Amend. On April 1, 2019, the court denied
the plaintiff's motion.
On May 1, 2019, Jackson appealed the dismissal of the action to the
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Avanos said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of this
matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.
AXOGEN INC: Einhorn Securities Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AxoGen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the class action
suit entitled, Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069,
has been granted.
On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers,
and (i) the several underwriters (the "2017 Offering Underwriters")
named in that certain Underwriting Agreement, dated November 16,
2017, by and between the Company and Leerink Partners LLC, as
representative of the several underwriters named therein, and (ii)
the several underwriters (the "2018 Offering Underwriters") named
in that certain Underwriting Agreement, dated May 8, 2018, by and
between the Company and Jefferies LLC and Leerink Partners LLC, as
representatives of the several underwriters named therein (the 2017
Offering Underwriters and 2018 Offering Underwriters, collectively,
with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), captioned
Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.).
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with the Company's November 2017
registration statement issued regarding its secondary public
offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement
issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and
during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018.
In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2)
that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the
Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that
such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that
the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment
model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel
stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the
Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue
to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and
backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating
metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and
(11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Plaintiff seeks an order (a) declaring the action a proper class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures; (b) awarding Police and Fire Retirement System of the
City of Detroit ("Lead Plaintiff") and the prospective class
compensatory damages against all Defendants in an amount to be
proven at trial; (c) awarding Lead Plaintiff and the prospective
class extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted
by the law (including but not limited to rescission); (d) awarding
Lead Plaintiff and the prospective class their costs and expenses
incurred in the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expert fees; (e) all such other relief that may be just and proper.
Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the
court granted the parties' stipulated motion which provided that
Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until
thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint.
On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff filed opposing papers on August 12, 2019.
The Court held a status hearing on September 11, 2019 and stayed
all deadlines regarding the parties' obligations to file a case
management report. The Court scheduled oral argument for the motion
to dismiss for December 4, 2019.
On April 21, 2020, the Court dismissed the Complaint without
prejudice, finding the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
The Plaintiff has 60 days to file an amended Complaint or the
action will be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is seeking
compensatory damages, reimbursement of expenses and costs,
including counsel and expert fees and such other relief as the
court deems just and proper.
"Failure to file a second amended complaint will result in the
dismissal of this action without prejudice without further notice,"
Judge Thomas P. Barber said.
The Company and Individual Defendants continue to dispute the
allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the any amended
Complaint, if filed.
AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products
to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries,
and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua,
Florida.
BAIDU INC: Schall Law Firm Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Baidu, Inc.
(NASDAQ:BIDU) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 16,
2019 and April 7, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 22, 2020.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Baidu failed to maintain compliance with
Chinese laws and regulations with its feed services. The Company
was at a heightened risk of enforcement action by the Chinese
government based on the noncompliance. This threat meant that the
Company's revenues derived from online marketing were likely not to
be sustainable. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about Baidu, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN]
BAYOU STEEL: Nabor Suit Seeks 60-Day Back Pay Under WARN Act
------------------------------------------------------------
TROY FLEMING, JARROD NABOR, DAVARIAN URSIN, CHARLES ZIEGELER, and
RONNIE MILLET, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. BAYOU STEEL BD HOLDINGS II, L.L.C. and BLACK DIAMOND
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01476-CJB-KWR (E.D. La.,
May 19, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act seeking
recovery for Bayou Steel's former employees of damages in the
amount of 60 days' back pay, ERISA benefits and other damages.
On September 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs learned that they were to be
terminated immediately, or had already been terminated, without
cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, a mass layoff
or facility closing ordered by Bayou Steel Entities and the
Defendants. Such termination violated the notice requirements of
the WARN Act because the Defendants failed to give them at least 60
days' advance written notice of termination, says the complaint.
Bayou Steel BD Holdings, L.L.C., operates as a holding company. The
company, through its subsidiaries, manufactures carbon steel
products, such as beams. Black Diamond operates as an investment
management firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent B. Barriere, Esq.
Jason W. Burge, Esq.
Kathryn J. Johnson, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P.
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 586-5252
Facsimile: (504) 586-2520
E-mail: bbarriere@fishmanhaygood.com
jburge@fishmanhaygood.com
kjohnson@fishmanhaygood.com
- and -
Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
Facsimile: (314) 833-4826
E-mail: jpeiffer@pwcklegal.com
bwise@pwcklegal.com
- and -
Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
Bradley T. Oster, Esq.
O'BELL LAW FIRM, LLC
3500 North Hullen Street
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 456-8677
Facsimile: (504) 456-8653
E-mail: ejo@obelllawfirm.com
brad@obelllawfirm.com
- and -
Hugh P. Lambert, T.A., Esq.
Cayce C. Peterson, Esq.
THE LAMBERT FIRM, PLC
701 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 581-1750
Facsimile: (504) 529-2931
E-mail: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com
cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com
- and -
Randal L. Gaines, Esq.
7 Turnberry Drive
LaPlace, LA 70068
Telephone: (225) 647-3383
Facsimile: (985) 652-3299
E-mail: attyrandal@gmail.com
- and -
Kevin J. Mangan, Esq.
Nicholas T. Verna, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
1313 North Market Street, Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (312) 252-4320
Facsimile: (312) 252-4330
E-mail: kevin.mangan@wbd-us.com
nick.verna@wbd-us.com
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Remaining $2 Million Paid to Settlement Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Berkshire Bank has
paid the remaining $2.0 million in previously accrued settlement
funds to the Settlement Administrator and distribution of the
settlement proceeds is now substantially complete.
On April 28, 2016, the Company and Berkshire Bank (the Bank) were
served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court,
District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division.
The complaint was filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor,
who claims to have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported
class of Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder,
among other matters.
On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported claims
under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.
On January 4, 2019, the Parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the matter on a class-wide basis. Among other terms, the
agreement in principle provides that the Company pay a total of
$3.0 million in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice and
release of all claims that have been or could have been asserted in
the lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class
Members.
On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Parties' fully-executed
Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement") with the Court
together with her unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement. On July 24, 2019, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the Settlement, and issued an Order that
notice of the Settlement be given to all Settlement Class Members.
The Company paid $1.0 million on July 26, 2019, as required under
the Settlement to offset certain anticipated administrative costs
and expenses.
On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the Settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing
the case with prejudice.
The Company anticipates that the Settlement will be completed
sometime during the first six months of 2020. The appeals period
passed on March 16, 2020, and the dismissal of case became final
pending the completion of the distribution of the settlement
proceeds to eligible Settlement Class Members.
On or about March 25, 2020, the Bank paid the remaining $2.0
million in previously accrued settlement funds to the Settlement
Administrator and distribution of the settlement proceeds is now
substantially complete.
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
BERKSHIRE HILLS: SI Financial Shareholder Appeals Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiff in
the class action suit filed against SI Financial Group, Inc., filed
notice of his intention to appeal the trial court's dismissal of
his claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
On February 9, 2019, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
by a purported SI Financial Group, Inc. ("SI Financial")
shareholder.
On June 26, 2019, the Company received notice of a verified
consolidated amended complaint in this action, which was filed
after consolidation and elimination of two additional suits filed
in the same Court by other former shareholders of SI Financial.
The lawsuit purports to be filed as a putative class action lawsuit
against SI Financial, the individual former members of the SI
Financial board of directors, and the Company, in connection with
the Company's announced intention to acquire and merge with SI
Financial.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated SI
Financial shareholders, generally alleges that the registration
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
on February 4, 2019 contains materially misleading omissions or
misrepresentations in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and
that the individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to SI
Financial shareholders and were unjustly enriched by the subject
merger transaction.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
Of note, SI Financial merged with and into the Company on May 17,
2019, and ceased to have any further independent legal existence at
that time. The Company and the individual Defendants deny the
allegations contained in the verified consolidated amended
complaint and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
On July 26, 2019, the Company and the individual Defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss all claims in this litigation, which is
still pending before the court.
On April 16, 2020, the court issued a ruling granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss all counts of the Complaint. The
Plaintiff's claims under federal law, including Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder,
were dismissed with prejudice, while certain state court claims
under Connecticut law were dismissed without prejudice.
On May 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed notice of his intention to
appeal the trial court's dismissal of his claims to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Berkshire said, "There are no other active cases proceeding against
the Company or the individual Defendants in regard to the SI
Financial merger."
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Silulu v. Trustee Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
------------------------------------------------------------------
Valaauina Silulu and Natalie Silulu, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Trustees of Boston
University, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-10914 (D. Mass., May 13,
2020), seeks disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully obtained for
tuition, fees, on-campus housing, and meals; injunctive relief
including enjoining Boston University from retaining the pro-rated,
unused monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals;
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses; prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and
further relief as may be just and proper; and refunds of all
tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages
resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Defendants oversee Boston University (BU), a private university
system consisting of six campuses, with the primary campus in
Boston where Plaintiffs paid for the Spring 2020 semester at BU. BU
decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and
transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of
the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Plaintiffs claims to be deprived the
benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities,
student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for
which they had already paid fees and tuition. BU refused to provide
reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold Lichten, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
- and -
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: scarson@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER AND MONTAGUE
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Tel: (612) 594-5933
Email: emdrake@bm.net
BOULDER HEALTHCARE: Webb Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Webb, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
BOULDER HEALTHCARE LLC, EUCLID BEACH HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-01153 (N.D. Ohio, May 27, 2020), Case No. 1:20-cv-01153
(N.D. Ohio, May 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
their failure to pay their employees overtime wages, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not fully and
properly paid all overtime wages earned because the Defendants did
not properly calculate their regular rates of pay when employees
earned extra remuneration in addition to their base hourly pay. The
Plaintiff has not been fully and lawfully compensated for all of
their compensable hours worked due to the aforementioned policies
and practices of not paying employees at the correct overtime rate
for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed at Boulder's Euclid Beach facility.
Boulder is a domestic limited liability company that owns and
operates skilled nursing and assisting living facilities, including
the Euclid Beach Facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit related to its alleged false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts, regarding its receivables, business, operations and
prospects relating to, among other things, the demand for the
company's softgel and oil products.
In November 2019, Canopy Growth and certain of its current and
former officers were named as defendants in three purported class
action claims; two of these complaints have since been dismissed.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts, regarding its receivables, business, operations and
prospects relating to, among other things, the demand for the
company's softgel and oil products. The amended complaint has not
yet been filed. The class actions have not yet been certified.
Canopy said, "We have retained counsel and intend to defend
ourselves in such action."
Canopy Growth Corporation is a leading cannabis company with
operations in countries throughout the world. The company produces,
distributes and sells a diverse range of cannabis and hemp-based
products for both recreational and medical purposes under a
portfolio of distinct brands in Canada pursuant to the Cannabis
Act, SC 2018, c 16 (the "Cannabis Act"), and globally pursuant to
applicable international and Canadian legislation, regulations and
permits.
CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action Still Ongoing in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by, Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop.
Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop brought suit against CDK Global, LLC on
April 9, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, but reserved its rights with respect to remand to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin at the
conclusion of the MDL proceedings.
On June 5, 2018, AutoLoop amended its complaint to sue on behalf of
itself and a putative class action of all other automotive software
vendors in the United States that purchased data integration
services from CDK Global, LLC or Reynolds.
CDK Global, LLC moved to compel arbitration of AutoLoop's claims,
or in the alternative, to dismiss those claims; that motion was
denied on January 25, 2019. CDK Global, LLC filed an answer to
AutoLoop's complaint and asserted counterclaims against AutoLoop on
February 15, 2019.
AutoLoop filed an answer to CDK Global, LLC’s counterclaims on
March 8, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.
CHINA: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Coronavirus Cover-Up
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Weaver, writing for Miami Herald, reports that in early March,
when much of America was still wondering how far the coronavirus
would spread, flight attendant Jessica Merritt was already wearing
a mask and gloves to protect herself on an overseas trip to
Southeast Asia.
Despite taking the same precautions on later flights, the Boca
Raton 30-year-old started feeling constantly jet-lagged and soon
lost her sense of taste. Merritt grew suspicious and wondered
whether she might be infected with the novel coronavirus.
Towards the end of March, she got word from her employer that she
may have been exposed to another airline crew member who had it but
showed no symptoms. A few days later, she tested positive for the
respiratory disease, COVID-19, bringing her nine-year career as a
flight attendant to an abrupt halt.
Worried about her future, Merritt recently decided to join a
growing South Florida class-action lawsuit that accuses the
People's Republic of China of knowing about the danger of the
coronavirus in December, covering up its rapid spread by Chinese
traveling to other countries through January, and ultimately
causing the loss of tens of millions of jobs and the deaths of at
least 78,000 Americans -- a number likely to continue growing for
months.
Merritt put her name on the suit along with dozens of other
workers, healthcare professionals and business people from here,
New York and other parts of the country. The South Florida native
believes that if China had warned the world early on about the
deadly virus that originated in the city of Wuhan, the United
States could have been better prepared to contain its spread and
devastation.
'MY LIFE HAS BEEN SEVERELY DISRUPTED'
"China could have been a lot more open and forthcoming," said
Merritt, who survived her bout with coronavirus but is on a leave
of absence and expects to be furloughed from her job. "My life has
been severely disrupted by this virus in every way imaginable."
The suit hinges on the argument that the coronavirus somehow
migrated from a prominent virology lab in Wuhan -- in which the
Chinese government has a financial interest -- into the "wet"
markets where wild animals are sold to the public and ultimately
through travelers to the United States.
The class-action case, filed in April, has gotten a potential boost
from the shifting blame game in the White House, which initially
praised Chinese leadership for handling the virus. Then, as the
U.S. domestic death toll soared in recent weeks, President Donald
Trump and other senior officials began to fault the Chinese
government for covering up the pandemic's severity, and possibly
even letting the virus escape from that Wuhan lab — a theory the
administration's top health official has discounted.
HATCHED IN LAS VEGAS
The idea for the class-action suit was hatched during the second
week of March when attorney Matthew Moore and colleague Jeremy
Alters, a former lawyer who works as a strategist for the South
Florida-based Berman Law Group, opened a branch office of the firm
in Las Vegas.
During the visit, they attended a Pac-12 conference basketball
tournament because Alters' son was playing for one of the teams.
But the tournament was canceled after the first day. Moore and
Alters soon noticed that the famous Las Vegas Strip wasn't as
crowded as usual with tourists. The threat of the coronavirus was
already starting to take its toll on Americans, they thought.
What pushed them over the edge was news from China. A Chinese
official publicized a conspiracy theory on Twitter that U.S.
soldiers may have brought COVID-19 to China during a visit last
fall or that it may have originated in a U.S. military lab and
spread there.
"We have to do something about this," Moore told Alters.
Moore quickly researched the history of the coronavirus, and
crafted the original lawsuit with a handful of class
representatives that was filed on March 12 in the Southern District
of Florida. The case was assigned to longtime Miami federal judge
Ursula Ungaro. The news media coverage was immediate, mainly
because it was the first such negligence case filed against China
in the United States.
However, some legal experts immediately discredited the suit,
saying it would go nowhere because China has sovereign immunity
under U.S. law and cannot be sued under these circumstances.
FORGING PAST LEGAL HURDLES
Moore and Alters said they were aware of the obvious legal hurdles,
but have forged ahead. There is, for one thing, a track record of
success in suing Chinese companies over defective and dangerous
drywall. An initial $1 billion settlement in that class-action case
between thousands of Florida homeowners and Chinese manufacturers
was approved by a federal judge in 2013. A second agreement for
$248 million with another Chinese company owned by the government
was reached earlier this year.
"I think we have a good shot," Alters said about the coronavirus
case. "It's such a powerful thing that has affected so many people,
it's hard to deny it."
After the initial publicity, hundreds of people - some infected
with the coronavirus and others who lost relatives to it -
expressed interest in joining the class, including Merritt, the
flight attendant.
Moore has since amended the suit, filing a new complaint in early
May with a sharper argument on why the People's Republic of China
and the Chinese Communist Party can both be held liable in U.S.
courts for the spread of the coronavirus, which causes the COVID-19
respiratory disease.
Even if the Chinese government is protected from being sued because
of sovereign immunity, Moore maintains the Chinese Communist Party
that controls it is not.
"If they show up [in federal court], they are going to say they are
the government and cannot be sued. But we disagree," he said. "The
Chinese government was very active in this virus research in Wuhan
and helped it along. . . . It's a multibillion-dollar industry."
RESEARCH AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY
A key part of the suit argues that the operation of the Wuhan
Institute of Virology, which has been conducting research on the
novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 for years, amounts to a "commercial
activity" that should open the door for litigation against China in
U.S. courts.
The suit claims that the virus may have "originated" at the
institute while scientists did research on horseshoe bats, and
eventually spread to Wuhan's wet markets. From there, the suit
claims, the virus was eventually carried by travelers to the United
States, closing the loop for liability on the part of the Chinese
government.
Some legal critics give it little chance of success. One South
Florida law professor dismissed the civil action as "crazy," while
a Yale law professor said its claims -- under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act -- does not include exceptions for suing China
despite its involvement in the Wuhan lab.
If Moore's legal team can overcome the daunting jurisdictional
challenge of suing China and its Communist Party in American court,
the goal would be to prove the country's negligence.
In court, Moore and his team would have to show that Chinese
officials allowed the virus to spread from the virology lab to the
wet markets in Wuhan and did not alert the world to the threat of a
pandemic. They would also have to show that Chinese officials
carried out a cover-up by asserting the virus could only be
transmitted by animals -- not humans -- and letting millions of
Chinese travel to the United States and other countries through
January.
"China had an obligation to say something and they said nothing,"
Moore told the Miami Herald. "What China has done is what they have
always done -- they have chosen secrecy over transparency."
REVISED INTELLIGENCE REPORT
His amended suit highlighted a recent Newsweek story on a revised
intelligence report to boost the class-action case: "The report,
dated March 27 and corroborated by two U.S. officials, reveals that
U.S. intelligence revised its January assessment in which it
‘judged that the outbreak probably occurred naturally' to now
include the possibility that the new coronavirus emerged
‘accidentally' due to ‘unsafe laboratory practices' in the
central Chinese city of Wuhan, where the pathogen was first
observed late last year."
But Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases who has become the public face of
the pandemic, also told Newsweek earlier in May that he did not
believe the Wuhan lab was the source of the coronavirus outbreak.
Regardless of whether that theory proves true, there is a
consensus, at least outside China, that the coronavirus outbreak
began in Wuhan in December.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Jan. 21 announced
the first travel-related case of novel coronavirus in the United
States involving a person in Washington State, who had traveled
from Wuhan. At the end of the month, Trump declared his plan to
restrict travel from China, which took effect in early February.
Trump barred non-U.S. citizens from traveling from China, but there
were exceptions, and Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan were not included.
U.S. citizens and permanent residents could still travel from China
but were subject to screening and a possible 14-day quarantine.
RESTRICTIONS CAME TOO LATE
But those restrictions apparently came too late. Merritt, the Boca
Raton flight attendant, said that she and other airline workers
were taking precautions by wearing masks and gloves on both
domestic and international flights. Those safeguards did not spare
her from contracting the coronavirus in late March, most likely
from a fellow crew member who was asymptomatic.
After driving around South Florida looking for a place to be tested
for COVID-19, she was finally allowed into a mobile site outside
the Cleveland Clinic in Weston. A few days later, she received her
result: positive.
"I got a hive-like rash on my face, a loss of appetite and aches
and pains," said Merritt, who quarantined herself at a home she
shares with her boyfriend, a firefighter. "My highest fever was
99.9. My boyfriend moved to the other side of the house. We took
social distancing to the extreme to make sure he was not exposed."
Although Merritt has recovered, she took a leave of absence in
early May from her job with a major airline. As a result, she's no
longer earning a paycheck from her employer. Her immediate
prospects for employment in the airline industry seem bleak because
it is still reeling from the crushing economic impact of the
coronavirus on the U.S. economy.
"Unfortunately, I have only worked as a flight attendant for nine
years," she said. "I don't have enough seniority, so I'm probably
going to be furloughed from my job for quite a while." [GN]
CHINA: US Virus Patients, Businesses File Coronavirus Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Anderson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
before the coronavirus outbreak, Saundra Andringa-Meuer was a
healthy 61-year-old mother of six who never smoked or drank
alcohol. Then she became seriously ill with the disease after
traveling from her Wisconsin home to help her son move from college
in Connecticut.
She was hospitalized in March, ending up in a coma and on a
ventilator for 14 days. Doctors told her family she had a slim
chance to live. When she emerged, she was told she was the sickest
COVID-19 patient they had seen survive.
Now Andringa-Meuer has joined with dozens of other American virus
patients and some U.S. businesses in taking a new legal step: They
are attempting to sue China over the spread of the virus, which has
killed at least 75,000 people in the United States.
"I do feel that they hid it from the world and from Americans," she
said. "I don't feel we had to have the loss of life. I don't think
we had to have the economy shut down. It disrupted all of American
lives. I do believe we need to right some of these wrongs."
So far, at least nine lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. against
China claiming authorities there did not do enough to corral the
virus initially, tried to hide what was happening in the outbreak
center of Wuhan and sought to conceal their actions and what they
knew.
Eight of the lawsuits are potential class actions that would
represent thousands of people and businesses. One was filed by the
attorney general of Missouri, which is so far the only state to
take legal action against China.
The cases face several hurdles under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act, which states that foreign governments cannot be
sued in the U.S. unless certain exceptions are met. And those are
not easy to prove, experts say.
"We think it's going to be an uphill battle for them to ultimately
take advantage of those exceptions," said Robert Boone, an attorney
in Los Angeles who specializes in class action cases.
One exception involves commercial activity that directly affects
the U.S. Another is misconduct inside the U.S. under certain
circumstances that is traceable to a foreign government. A third
exception is whether the foreign entity explicitly waived its
immunity, such as through language in a contract.
Attorneys who have filed the lawsuits say they can prove those
claims, and, if they win, find some method of collecting damages,
perhaps by seizing Chinese bank accounts or other assets in the
U.S. if the Chinese refuse to pay.
In one case filed in Miami federal court on behalf of
Andringa-Meurer and many others, attorneys Matthew Moore and Jeremy
Alters are suing the Chinese Communist Party as an entity separate
from the Chinese government.
"They have their own assets. They are recognized as an independent
organization. We are going to argue they are not a part of the
government," Moore said. "There has been personal injury that
happened in the United States."
Added Alters: "They're going to have to pay . . . We can say,
'We're not going to do business with you anymore.' When you hit
them in the (gross domestic product), it hurts."
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang defended his
country's record of fighting the virus. He said the lawsuit filed
by the Missouri attorney general is "very absurd and has no factual
and legal basis."
Since the outbreak began, China has proceeded in an "open,
transparent, and responsible manner," and the U.S. government
should "dismiss such vexatious litigation," he said.
Efforts are underway in Congress and in some state legislatures to
make it easier to sue China and other countries. One bill was
introduced by Republican U.S. Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee
and Martha McSally of Arizona, and GOP U.S. Rep. Lance Gooden of
Texas in the House.
"The Chinese government must be held accountable for the pain it's
inflicted across the United States," McSally said in a statement.
The proposed legislation "will give the U.S. a piece of justice."
In New Jersey, three Republican state lawmakers introduced a
resolution urging President Donald Trump and Congress to pass a
bill letting citizens sue China for "mishandling" the pandemic.
State Sen. Jim Holzapfel and Assemblymen Greg McGuckin and John
Catalano said in a statement that they believe Chinese leaders did
little to stop the spread of the virus and that residents and local
governments should be legally allowed to recover some of what they
lost financially.
It's not clear if any of the legislation will pass. If the bills
were enacted, legal experts say they could open the floodgates for
hundreds more lawsuits against China.
"If that immunity were stripped, it's going to produce a gigantic
burden on the court system," said Boone, the class action lawyer.
"That's a factor that will need to be weighed in deciding whether
to pass it."
As for Andringa-Meurer, she said she's still somewhat frail but
getting better all the time.
"I'm weak, but I'm fabulous. I'm alive," she said. "I want to give
back, not only to the doctors and nurses who gave me the
opportunity to live. They are the heroes. But also to all of the
Americans who were affected by this." [GN]
CRAFT BREW: Continues to Defend Suits Over Anheuser-Busch Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend class action suits related to its merger with
Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC.
Craft Brew previously announced its entry into the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of November 11, 2019, by and among the
Company, Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ("A-B"), and Barrel Subsidiary, Inc., a
Washington corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of A-B
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of A-B. In connection with the
Merger, several lawsuits were filed on behalf of shareholders of
the Company.
In connection with the pending merger transaction with ABC, several
lawsuits were filed on behalf of the company's shareholders.
On January 3, 2020, a purported class action complaint brought on
behalf of a putative class of the company's shareholders, captioned
Kost et al. v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
20-2-00389-1 SEA, was filed in the Superior Court of Washington,
King County (the "Kost Action").
On January 14, 2020, a second purported class action complaint
brought on behalf of a putative class of our shareholders,
captioned Birkby v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
20CV02867, was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon
for the County of Multnomah (the "Birkby Action").
The Birkby and Kost Actions assert state law claims for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty against our company and our directors.
The Kost Action also brings claims against the company's Chief
Executive Officer and ABC, and includes allegations of material
misstatements and omissions in the company's definitive proxy
statement filed with the SEC on January 21, 2020 (the "Proxy
Statement").
In addition, four complaints were filed in federal court asserting
claims against our company and our directors under the federal
securities laws and alleging material misstatements and omissions
in the Proxy Statement: Sabatini et al. v. Craft Brew Alliance,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00138, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on January 29, 2020 on
behalf of a putative class of our shareholders (the "Sabatini
Action"), Halberstam v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01243, filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on February 7, 2020 on behalf of an
individual shareholder (the "Halberstam Action"), Michael Roberts
et al. v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00208, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on February 12, 2020 on behalf of a putative
class of our shareholders (the "Michael Roberts Action"), and
Dennis Roberts v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00337, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on February 10, 2020 on behalf of an
individual shareholder (the "Dennis Roberts Action"). The Sabatini
Action also asserts claims against ABC and a subsidiary of ABC.
On February 18, 2020, the company announced the resolution of
claims with the plaintiffs in the Kost, Sabatini, Halberstam, and
Michael Roberts Actions, whereby the company filed supplemental
disclosures and plaintiffs in the Kost, Sabatini, Halberstam, and
Michael Roberts Actions dismissed their individual claims with
prejudice, and plaintiffs in the Kost, Sabatini, and Michael
Roberts Actions dismissed their class claims without prejudice.
The Birkby and Dennis Roberts Actions have not been resolved.
Craft Brew said, "We did not view the supplemental disclosures as
material or required by applicable law, but determined to make the
disclosures in order to avoid the expense and risks inherent in
further litigation."
Craft Brew Alliance Inc. operates breweries that offers a wide
assortment of beers. The Company owns and operates production
breweries with adjacent restaurants and pubs in parts of the United
States. The company is based in Portland, Oregon.
CVR REFINING: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against CVR
Refining, LP for violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 30,
2018 and January 28, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 5, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. CVRR's unit price fell based on the
pressure of its reduced public float and the threat of the Call
Right following the Exchange Offer, which offset its favorable
financial results. After more than 90 days had passed from the
Exchange Offer and the CVRR unit price was left stagnant, the
Company announced it was "considering" exercising the Call Right,
which would further drive down the price. Following a substantial
decline, the Company exercised the Call Right, the price of which
was based on the 20-day trading average of CVRR units, which the
Company had manipulated to be artificially low. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about CVRR, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
Cell: 424-303-1964
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN]
CVS HEALTH: Faces Analog Insulin Products-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., et al. (U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey), related to analog
insulin products.
This putative class action was filed in March 2020 against
Caremark, other PBMs and the manufacturers of analog insulin
products on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of
these products. The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act RICO and claims that
rebate agreements between the drug manufacturers and pharmacy
benefit managements (PBMs) caused the direct purchasers to pay
inflated prices for these drug products.
The Company is defending itself against these claims.
CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
CVS HEALTH: Faces EpiPen Product Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al. (U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota), related to EpiPen
products and their authorized generics.
This putative class action was filed in March 2020 against
Caremark, other pharmacy benefit managements(PBMs) and the
manufacturer of EpiPen products and their authorized generics on
behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of these products.
The complaint alleges violations of RICO and claims that rebate
agreements between the drug manufacturer and PBMs caused the direct
purchasers to pay inflated prices for these drug products.
The Company is defending itself against these claims.
CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
CVS HEALTH: LTC Related Class Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend several class action suit related to LTC business unit.
Between February and August 2019, six class action complaints were
filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain
current and former officers and directors: Anarkat v. CVS Health
Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island); Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); City of Warren
Police and Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et. al. (Rhode
Island Superior Court); Cambria Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); Freundlich v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); and
Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp.,
et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island).
The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that
the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations
relating to the performance of the Company's LTC business unit,
which allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health
securities between February 9, 2016 and February 20, 2019.
The Freundlich case also alleges that defendants misrepresented
anticipated synergies of the acquisition of Aetna (the "Aetna
Acquisition").
Plaintiffs in the Freundlich and the City of Warren cases have
filed a consolidated complaint that combines their allegations. The
Company is defending itself against these claims.
CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
CVS HEALTH: Trial in Corcoran Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that trial is ongoing in the
class action suit entitled, Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation.
Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS
Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois).
These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July
and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer
protection statutes of certain states on behalf of a class of
consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs.
Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on
behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare
and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare Fund,
Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February and
August 2016.
In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged
for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the price
available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the
pharmacy's usual and customary price.
In the Corcoran case, the U.S. District Court granted summary
judgment to the Company on plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and
certified certain subclasses in September 2017.
In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the U.S. District Court's grant of summary judgment and
reversed the U.S. District Court’s narrowing of the requested
class.
The Corcoran case is proceeding to a trial on a six state class
basis, and trial is scheduled to occur in 2020.
The Sheet Metal Workers plaintiffs have amended their complaint to
assert a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") premised on an alleged conspiracy
between the Company and other PBMs.
The Company is defending itself against these claims.
CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Virginia Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
class action suit entitled, In re DXC Technology Company Securities
Litigation, is pending.
On December 27, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and two of its current officers.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of February 8, 2018 to November 6, 2018.
The Company has moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety.
On July 26, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the Company's
motion to dismiss, and a decision is now pending.
DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.
E-HOUSE (CHINA): Schall Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against E-House
(China) Holdings Limited for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 15,
2016, and August 31, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"); or by
way of, or as a result, of tendering their ADS as part of the
Company's Merger, are encouraged to contact the firm before June 9,
2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, to discuss your rights free of charge.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. E-House's merger was not fair and was not
in the best interest of shareholders not affiliated with the
Company's management and buying group. In fact, the Company already
had plans for post-merger financial transactions. The projections
offered in the Company's proxy materials were not based on the best
information available. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about E-House,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/
Office: 310-301-3335
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN]
EASTER SEALS: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Markley Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE MARKLEY, as an individual and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. EASTER SEALS, INC., an Ohio corporation;
EASTER SEALS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation;
EASTER SEALS CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, Case No. 20STCV18866 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 18, 2020), seeks civil penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act, California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with all legally compliant
meal periods because the Defendants did not maintain a lawful meal
period policy and failed to provide duty-free meal periods to the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from July 2014 to May
2019 as a non-exempt employee in the position of "Direct Service
Associate" out of the Defendants' Claremont and Covina, California
locations. The Plaintiff's job duties primarily consisted of caring
for disabled patients in the Defendants' homes.
The Defendants provide services for individuals with disabilities,
veterans, and seniors, and employed the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated hourly non-exempt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Daniel B. Marin-Finn, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
dfinn@haineslawgroup.com
EHEALTH INC: Rosen Reminds of June 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: EHTH)
between March 19, 2018 and April 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period”) of the important June 8, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
eHealth investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the eHealth class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1836.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) eHealth had highly aggressive accounting and modeling
assumptions; (2) eHealth suffered from skyrocketing rate of member
churn, resulting from eHealth's pursuit of low quality, lossmaking
growth; (3) eHealth relied on direct response television
advertising, which attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee;
and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 8,
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-1836.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ELIXINOL LLC: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Elixinol Global Limited (Elixinol or the Company) (ASX:EXL;
OTC:ELLXF) provided a further update to the announcement on
December 5, 2019 regarding Elixinol, LLC, a Colorado Limited
Liability Company (EXU).
The Company announced that the plaintiffs in the class-action suit
filed against EXU in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal (Notice) at approximately 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 8,
2020 [US Pacific standard time]. The Notice was filed without
prejudice and each party is to bear its own costs. [GN]
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Class Certified in "Dougherty" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et
al. (E.D. Mich. No. 16-cv-10089), United States Magistrate Judge R.
Steven Whalen entered an order on May 31, 2020, granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and to Appoint Class
Representatives and Class Counsel.
Plaintiffs define the proposed class as follows:
"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. between August 18, 2015 and
September 28, 2015 (inclusive) and were damaged thereby. Excluded
from the Class are the Defendants; the officers and directors of
the Company; members of their immediate families, their legal
representatives; their heirs, successors or assigns; and any entity
in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest."
Lead Plaintiffs are appointed as Class Representatives, and Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP are
appointed as Class Counsel.
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that on January 12, 2016, a
purported stockholder of the company filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, against the company and Tim Mayleben,
captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
(No. 16-cv-10089).
The lawsuit alleges that the company and Mr. Mayleben violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17,
2015, public statement that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before approving the
company's lead product candidate.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August
18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.
On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and
on July 5, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the
company's favor.
On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion
to alter or amend the judgment. In May 2017, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.
On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they
filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The appeal was
fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the
Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018.
On September 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in which
it reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings. On October 11, 2018, we filed a petition for rehearing
en banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit of Appeals
directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition.
On December 3, 2018, the Sixth Circuit denied the company's
petition for en banc rehearing, and on December 11, 2018, the case
was returned to the federal district court by mandate from the
Sixth Circuit.
On December 26, 2018, the company's filed its answer to the amended
complaint, and on March 28, 2019, the company's filed its amended
answer to the amended complaint.
On March 27, 2020, District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow signed on a
Stipulation and Order Amending a Scheduling Order. This ruling
provides that Expert Discovery is due by August 21, 2020, and
Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for September 15, 2020.
Esperion said, "We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter
and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range
of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of
patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
ETOH MONITORING: Faces Meade Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ETOH Monitoring, LLC.
The case is captioned as Hakeem Meade, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ETOH Monitoring, LLC; and Paul A.
Bonin, Judge of the Orleans Parish Criminal District, Case No.
2:20-cv-01455-CJB-DMD (E.D. La., May 14, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Carl Barbier.
The lawsuit alleges violation of civil rights laws.
ETOH Monitoring has been providing alcohol monitoring solutions in
Southeast Louisiana since 2006.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brock Most, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 114 No. 101
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 509-5023
E-mail: williammost@gmail.com
- and -
Jaba Tsitsuashvili, Esq.
William R. Maurer, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
Telephone: (703) 682-9320
Facsimile: (703) 682-9321
E-mail: jtsitsuashvili@ij.org
wmaurer@ij.org
EXTENDED STAY: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Extended Stay America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend purported class action suits in California.
As of March 31, 2020, the following six purported class action
lawsuits have been filed against the Company:
On March 27, 2018, Tracy Reid, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated against ESA Management, LLC, in US District
Court, Northern District of California;
On June 8, 2018, Franisha Beasley and Stephanie Randall,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against ESA
Management, LLC, in US District Court, Northern District of
California;
On July 13, 2018, Adrienne Liggins, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated and aggrieved against ESA Management,
LLC, Extended Stay America - Anaheim Convention Center, in US
District Court, Northern District of California;
on July 13, 2018, Bridget Liggins, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated and aggrieved against ESA Management,
LLC, at State of California, Orange County Superior Court;
On August 21, 2018, Sandra Arizmendi, an individual, on behalf of
the State of California, as private attorney general, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated against ESA Management, LLC, in US
District Court, Northern District of California;
On January 18, 2019, Lisa M. Sanchez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated against Extended Stay America, Inc.
and ESA Management, LLC at State of California, Orange County
Superior Court.
The complaints above allege, among other things, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, wage and hour violations and violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The complaints seek, among other relief, collective and class
certification of the lawsuits, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
court might find just and proper.
With respect to the Fair Credit Reporting Act violations alleged in
the lawsuits described above, the parties reached a tentative
settlement agreement in May 2019, which is subject to certain
conditions, including court approval.
During the three months ended June 30, 2019, the Company recorded a
payable and a corresponding insurance receivable for the amount of
the tentative settlement. The expected resolution of the alleged
Fair Credit Reporting Act violations in the lawsuits did not have,
and is not expected to have, a material adverse impact on the
Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, results of
operations or liquidity.
With respect to the meal and rest period and the wage and hour
violations alleged in the lawsuits described above, excluding the
Sanchez lawsuit, the parties reached a tentative settlement
agreement in January 2020, which is subject to certain conditions,
including court approval.
During the three months ended December 31, 2019, the Company
incurred a loss and recorded a charge equal to the amount of the
tentative settlement. The expected resolution of the alleged meal
and rest period and wage and hour violations in the lawsuits did
not have, and is not expected to have, a material adverse impact on
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, results
of operations or liquidity.
With respect to the Sanchez lawsuit, although the Company believes
it is reasonably possible that it may incur losses associated with
such matter, it is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or
range of loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments,
settlements or other resolution based on the early stage of the
lawsuit, the uncertainty as to the certification of a class or
classes and the size of any certified class, if applicable, and the
lack of resolution of significant factual and legal issues.
However, depending on the amount and timing, an unfavorable
resolution of the lawsuit or a change in the Company's assessment
of the likelihood of loss could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, results
of operations or liquidity in a future period. The company believes
that it had meritorious defenses and are prepared to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.
Extended Stay America, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and manages hotels in the United States. The company also
relicenses Extended Stay America brand to third party franchisees.
Extended Stay America, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
EXTREME SERVICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Troiano Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER TROIANO v. EXTREME SERVICE, LLC; JAMES VITALE and JOHN
DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No.3:20-cv-06015 (D.N.J., May 18, 2020), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law, New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and Conscientious Employee
Protection Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other individuals
similarly situated for the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages.
The Plaintiff says that he regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week. The Defendants initially paid him cash but failed to provide
any statement of deductions made from his cash wages. He asked the
Defendants to be put on the payroll several times between April and
October 2019. The Defendants finally placed him on the payroll in
October 2019. However, he alleges, the Defendants failed to pay him
overtime compensation for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week. He adds that the Defendants also failed to pay overtime
at one and one-half times his regularly hourly rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from April 1, 2019,
through November 25, 2019.
Extreme offers commercial and residential general contractor,
roofing, and water and storm damage restoration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 727-9700
FGL HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Sabatini Suit
-----------------------------------------------
FGL Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend Sabatini
v. FGL Holdings, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00495 (D. Del.).
On April 9, 2020, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware against FGL, the
members of its board of directors, Fidelity F I Corp. and F II
Corp., captioned Sabatini v. FGL Holdings, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00495 (D. Del.).
The complaint alleges that the registration statement issued in
connection with the proposed merger between FGL and Fidelity
omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, rendering the
registration statement false and misleading.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the registration statement
failed to disclose material information regarding (i) FGL's
financial projections, (ii) Houlihan's fairness opinion analyses
(including the selected companies, selected transactions, and
discounted cash flow analyses); (iii) purported "conflicts"
relating to Houlihan, Credit Suisse and CC Capital Partners; and
(iv) whether the confidentiality agreement used during the go-shop
period contained a standstill or "don't ask, don't waive"
provision.
The complaint seeks an order enjoining the proposed merger unless
and until additional disclosures are issued; rescinding the
proposed merger, to the extent it closes; awarding damages;
awarding costs, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and
expenses; and awarding such other relief as the court deems
proper.
FGL said, "As of the date of this report, the Company does not have
sufficient information to determine whether it has exposure to any
losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable."
FGL Holdings sells individual life insurance products and annuities
in the United States. The company offers deferred annuities,
including fixed indexed annuity contracts and fixed rate annuity
contracts; immediate annuities; and life insurance products. FGL
Holdings is headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.
FGL HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03144-JSR on behalf of shareholders of FGL Holdings
(NYSE:FG) who have been harmed by FGL's and its board of directors'
(the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection
with the proposed merger of the Company with Fidelity National
Financial, Inc. ("Fidelity") (the "Proposed Transaction").
On February 7, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger under which FGL shareholders stand to
receive $12.50 in case or 0.2558 shares of Fidelity common stock
for each share of FGL stock they own.
The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission violates Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the
Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the
Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board
relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to FGL
shareholders.
If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/FG.
Take Action
Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, contact:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292
(212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]
FGL HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
FGL Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the trial court overseeing the class
action suit initiated by the Brokerage Insurance Partners will hold
a hearing on September 1, 2020, to determine whether to grant final
approval to the settlement.
On June 30, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against FGL Insurance, FGL, and FS Holdco II Ltd in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned
Brokerage Insurance Partners v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance
Company, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, FS Holdco II Ltd, and John Doe,
No. 17-cv-1815.
The complaint alleges that FGL Insurance breached the terms of its
agency agreement with Brokerage Insurance Partners ("BIP") and
other agents by changing certain compensation terms.
The complaint asserts, among other causes of action, breach of
contract, defamation, tortious interference with contract,
negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
The complaint seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who
entered into an agreement with FGL Insurance to sell life insurance
and who sold at least one life insurance policy between January 1,
2015 and January 1, 2017.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, consequential, and
punitive damages in an amount not presently determinable, among
other forms of relief.
On September 1, 2017, FGL Insurance filed a counterclaim against
BIP and John and Jane Does 1-10, asserting, among other causes of
action, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy and violations
of RICO. On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on October 16, 2017, FGL Insurance filed an Amended
Counterclaim against BIP, Agent Does 1-10, and Other Person Does
1-10. The parties also filed cross-Motions to Dismiss in Part.
On August 17, 2018, the Court in the BIP Litigation denied all
pending Motions to Dismiss filed by all parties without prejudice,
pending a decision as to whether the BIP Litigation will be
consolidated into related litigation, captioned Fidelity & Guaranty
Life Insurance Company v. Network Partners, et al., Case No.
17-cv-1508.
On August 31, 2018, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to BIP's Amended
Complaint. Also on that date, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to
Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, Filed
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A).
On October 15, 2019, BIP filed with the Court an Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Class Certification,
along with a copy of the Class Action Settlement Agreement signed
by all parties.
A Fairness Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Settlement was held on Monday, January 13, 2020.
On January 15, 2020, the Court issued the Modified Findings and
Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement Between Plaintiff
and Defendants, Granting Conditional Certification of Settlement
Class, Directing Issuance of Notice to the Class, and Setting of
Final Approval Hearing ("Preliminary Approval Order").
In preliminarily approving the Class Settlement, the Court also
approved the Settlement Schedule that had been filed by Class
Counsel on January 10, 2020.
After confirmatory discovery, the Court, on April 22, 2020, amended
its Preliminary Approval Order and the Settlement Schedule.
Final settlement is subject to, among other requirements, final
approval by the Court after Court-approved Notice has been provided
to the absent members of the putative class.
On September 1, 2020, the Court will hold a hearing to determine
whether to grant final approval to the settlement.
FGL Holdings sells individual life insurance products and annuities
in the United States. The company offers deferred annuities,
including fixed indexed annuity contracts and fixed rate annuity
contracts; immediate annuities; and life insurance products. FGL
Holdings is headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.
FLORIDA: Frustrations Over DEO Web Site Lead to Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
WWSB reports that frustrations over the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity's (DEO) website has led to a class action
lawsuit being filed in Leon County.
The suit is Richard Walls, Desiree Del Romano, Mike Latner, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Ron Desantis as
governor of the State of Florida, and the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity and Deloitte Consulting (Holding Sub), LLC, In
the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon
County, Florida (Case No. 20-CA-2020 CA 000802).
Deloitte is the creator of the state's unemployment website which
has been a major source of frustration for Floridians who have
found themselves without a job during the coronavirus pandemic.
The frustration is something that Gov. DeSantis himself has
acknowledged, saying the website had not been a good investment on
behalf of the state. He even called it a "jalopy."
"With the onset of the coronavirus/COVID-19, hundreds of thousands
of workers in the State of Florida became displaced/unemployed with
the massive closures of businesses statewide. The workers began
using the RA system (the unemployment website) to obtain
unemployment compensation but the system is a colossal failure,"
reads the suit.
Two Tallahassee attorneys filed the suit on behalf of three
Floridians whose unemployment approvals are still pending or
rejected. One plaintiff, Mike Latner, alleges that his application
was ruled ineligible due to not making enough money in the previous
year. Attorneys say this was false and that Latner has not been
able to get a hold of a DEO employee to counter the rejection.
As of April 30, the Department of Economic Opportunity says they
have paid out $579,350,328 in claims.
The suit is asking for punitive and compensatory damages. [GN]
FRONTIER COMMS: Bid for Leave to Amend Class Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Communications Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut has denied
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.
On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against
Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings.
The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired
Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28,
2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to
Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or
about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015.
The complaint asserted, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection
with certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition.
The complaint sought, among other things, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief.
On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety
Frontier's motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court
dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to
certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice,
Plaintiffs were permitted to seek the court's permission to refile.
On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend along
with a proposed amended complaint that is narrower in scope than
the dismissed complaint.
On March 24, 2020, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend, finding that they had not pled a viable claim.
Plaintiffs may seek an appeal of the order dismissing the case.
Frontier said, "We continue to dispute the allegations and intend
to vigorously defend against such claims.
Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications
services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the
United States. It offers broadband, video, voice, and other
services and products through a combination of fiber and copper
based networks to consumer customers. The company was formerly
known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its name to
Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier
Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.
FUNDMERICA INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FUNDMERICA INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 8:20-cv-00969 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2020),
arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently
contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations.
According to the complaint, the Company used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its calls to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Company did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on its cellular telephone. The Plaintiff never granted the
Company any prior express consent nor was any established business
relationship with the Company in existence. The Plaintiff's
experiences of being called by the Company after requesting they
stop calling, and at all relevant times, the Company failed to
establish and implement reasonable practices and procedures to
effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the
regulations prescribed under the TCPA.
The Plaintiff is resident of the Pennsylvania.
Fundmerica Inc. is a loan company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
GABRIEL WORTMAN: Nova Scotia Shooting Victims File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Luperon, writing for Law & Crime, reports that an attorney
says that nine families of the Nova Scotia mass shooting are trying
to certify a class action lawsuit against the estate of Gabriel
Wortman, according to The Toronto Sun.
"The families that I have information from aren't doing this
strictly for money but rather to get answers and to see a form of
justice against the gunman, even if it's through his estate,"
Robert Pineo said in a May 8 report.
Twenty-two people were killed in a series of shootings April 18 and
19, police have said. Wortman, the killer and 23rd person to die,
was slain in a shootout with officers at Big Stop restaurant,
authorities said.
Pineo suggested the possibility that more people will join this
legal action. Other law firms might initiate other attempts to
certify class action complaints. If so, this could be consolidated
together.
The lead plaintiff in this one would be Nicholas Beaton. His wife
Kristen Beaton, who was pregnant, was killed while on the way to
work on April 19.
Categories of other plaintiffs in the hypothetical lawsuit are
immediate relatives of the victims, people injured by the gunman,
and those whose property was damaged. Categories two and three omit
a women described as Wortman's common law spouse. Pineo said it's
because she might be part of the estate because of her link to
Wortman.
Even police acknowledged that the sequence of events that April
weekend was a lot to untangle. Cops said that things started with
Wortman attacking and tying up his girlfriend. She escaped,
however. The gunman went to a series of homes and locations where
he shot people, according to authorities. Some of the victims were
described as people that he knew.
Wortman had collected police memorabilia. That included cars he
purchased from auction. During the first phase of the shootings,
he'd driven around a vehicle he'd gotten in the fall of 2019, said
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He was initially wearing "parts
of an authentic RCMP uniform, including a shirt and pants with a
yellow stripe," but eventually changed his clothes and vehicles,
officers said. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: NHTSA Won't Recall 56MM Takata Airbag Inflators
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has decided
about 56 million Takata airbag inflators won't be recalled as
planned, a decision which quickly got the attention of safety
advocates.
About 19 automakers won't be forced to replace the Takata airbag
inflators after an independent company studied the lifespan of
airbag inflators equipped with chemical drying agents.
An independent aerospace company associated with Northrop Grumman
tested the desiccated inflators to simulate 30 years of aging and
allegedly found no problems. Investigators did find the heat and
humidity of Florida may decrease the lifespan of the inflators and
vehicles in that state will need to be monitored more closely.
Takata was supposed to recall up to 56 million airbag inflators by
the end of 2019 unless the company could prove the airbags were
safe. Unlike most of the deaths and injuries caused by Takata
inflators, the newest inflators contain drying agents called
dessicants.
Researchers determined dozens of people were killed and hundreds
were injured because of a chemical called ammonium nitrate. The
chemical is used to create what should be a small explosion to
deploy the airbags.
But the ammonium nitrate, contained in metal airbag inflators, is
volatile when the inflators age and moisture enters the inflators.
Instead of protecting occupants in crash impacts, the Takata
inflators violently explode even in the smallest fender-benders.
In addition to Takata, 10 automakers performed tests on the
dessicated inflators and found no problems other than with certain
Volkswagen Passats and Beetles equipped with inflators that could
go bad in four years. Those vehicles will be recalled by the end of
2020.
NHTSA says all other inflators "do not pose risk to safety in the
coming years," but the agency will monitor the components for
evidence of degradation.
Auto safety organization Center for Auto Safety (CAS) says federal
safety regulators "waited until the middle of a global pandemic to
take the most hands-off of next steps."
"[T]he National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
reinforced its total lack of interest in most basic parts of their
mission: overseeing recalls, undertaking independent research not
requested by industry, and sharing vital safety information with
the public." - Center for Auto Safety
According to the Center, NHTSA has bailed out of its authority to
compel automakers to replace more than 50 million Takata airbag
inflators. CAS says certain automakers still haven't repaired 50%
of their vehicles equipped with dangerous Takata inflators.
And what NHTSA is doing is the opposite of transparency by holding
back reports and data that should be available to the public.
The Center says it hopes NHTSA is relying on accurate scientific
studies about the inflators, and while the government allegedly
monitors the Takata situation, CAS says it will be monitoring the
government.
NHTSA's decision doesn't include a separate matter concerning
General Motors vehicles equipped with Takata airbags as the
automaker has fought a recall of about 6 million trucks and SUVs
which will cost GM more than $1 billion.
General Motors filed four petitions in four years trying to
convince federal regulators a recall is unnecessary because the
airbag inflators are allegedly safe.
But NHTSA has done nothing but prolong its final decision whether
the vehicles are truly safe, something that sent owners into court
alleging in a class action that GM is playing with people's lives.
[GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement of Economic Loss Claims Has Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company (GM) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York has entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement to resolve
on a national basis the economic loss claims of the proposed
settlement class and proposed sub-classes, consisting of consumers
who purchased or leased GM vehicles covered by the seven 2014
safety recalls at issue in the District Court and the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
The company is aware of over 100 putative class actions pending
against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that consumers who
purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or Motors
Liquidation Company (MLC), formerly known as General Motors
Corporation, had been economically harmed by one or more of the
2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated
with those recalls (economic-loss cases).
In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
relief.
Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. These plaintiffs have
asserted economic-loss claims under federal and state laws,
including claims relating to recalled vehicles manufactured by GM
and claims asserting successor liability relating to certain
recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC.
In August 2017, the Southern District granted the company's motion
to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of
the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional
briefing to decide whether plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the
other nine states.
In December 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' successor liability claims in an
additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of
material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other
states.
In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions
of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling.
That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing plaintiffs'
successor liability claims in any state where New York law
applies.
In September 2018, the Southern District granted our motion to
dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47
jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied our
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' economic loss claims in 27
jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule. Significant summary
judgment, class certification, and expert evidentiary motions
remain at issue.
In August 2019, the Southern District granted the company's motion
for summary judgment on plaintiffs' economic loss "benefit of the
bargain" damage claims (the August 2019 Opinion). The Southern
District held that plaintiffs' conjoint analysis-based damages
model failed to establish that plaintiffs suffered
difference-in-value damages and without such evidence, plaintiffs'
difference-in-value damage claims fail under the laws of all three
bellwether states: California, Missouri and Texas.
Later in August 2019, the bellwether plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the Southern District reconsider its summary
judgment decision or allow an interlocutory appeal if
reconsideration is denied.
In December 2019, the Southern District denied plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of the August 2019 Opinion, but granted the
plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. On
April 1, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second
Circuit) granted the bellwether plaintiffs' petition seeking leave
to appeal the August 2019 Opinion.
On April 15, 2020, the bellwether plaintiffs and GM filed a
Stipulation to withdraw the appeal from the Second Circuit based on
the class settlement agreement described below.
Pursuant to the Stipulation, the bellwether plaintiffs can
reinstate the appeal no later than April 2021. The Second Circuit
endorsed the Stipulation by order on April 16, 2020.
In September 2019, GM filed an updated motion for summary judgment
on plaintiffs' remaining economic loss claims that were not
addressed in the Southern District’s August 2019 Opinion and
renewed its evidentiary motion seeking to strike the opinions of
plaintiff's expert on plaintiffs' alleged "lost time" damages
associated with having the recall repairs performed.
In March 2020, GM, plaintiffs and the MLC GUC Trust (GUC Trust)
reached a settlement agreement (Class Settlement Agreement) to
resolve on a national basis the economic loss claims of the
proposed settlement class and proposed sub-classes, consisting of
consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles covered by the seven
2014 safety recalls at issue in the Southern District and the
Bankruptcy Court.
The proposed Class Settlement Agreement provides a common fund of
$120 million for settlement class members, of which GM will fund
$70 million and the GUC Trust will fund the remaining $50 million.
GM will also pay attorneys' fees and costs that may be awarded by
the Southern District to plaintiffs' counsel up to a maximum of $35
million.
In April 2020, the Avoidance Action Trust (AAT), GM and plaintiffs
reached a tentative settlement under which the AAT will pay an
insignificant amount and will be added as a settling party to the
Class Settlement Agreement.
In April 2020, the Southern District entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement.
General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Drugs Price-Fixing Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend class suits over alleged rigging of the price of HIV
drugs.
The company (along with Japan Tobacco Inc. (Japan Tobacco),
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.) have been
named as defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020
related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in
combination antiretroviral therapy.
Japan Tobacco was recently dismissed from the primary lawsuit after
a favorable court ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs allege that the company (and the other remaining
defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in
violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection laws.
The lawsuits, which have been or may be consolidated, are all
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California and seek to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class
of wholesale and end-payor purchasers.
A similar lawsuit recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida has been consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other
relief.
"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions," Gilead
said.
"While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot predict
the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims,
we could be required to pay significant monetary damages or could
be subject to permanent injunctive relief awarded in favor of
plaintiffs."
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits over HIV Drugs Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit related to the side effects of its
HIV drugs, namely, Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and
Stribild.
The company been named as a defendant in one class action lawsuit
and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread, Truvada,
Atripla, Complera and Stribild.
Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or
Stribild caused them to experience kidney, bone and/or tooth
injuries.
The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in
California, Delaware, Florida and Hawaii, involve thousands of
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief
on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss.
Gilead said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these
actions. While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot
predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their
claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GROUPON INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Groupon, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRPN) between November 4, 2019 and February
18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Groupon securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit GRPN Shareholder Class
Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing fewer customer
engagements in its Goods category; (2) that Groupon relied on its
Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the holiday
season; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On February 18, 2020, Groupon reported fourth quarter 2019 sales of
$612.3 million, a nearly 23% decline over the prior year period.
The Company's adjusted EBITDA for fiscal 2019 was reported at
$227.2 million, a significant miss from its November 2019 forecast
of $270 million. Groupon also announced a "transformational plan to
exit Goods" in North America by the third quarter and globally by
the end of the year.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.35, or over 44%, to
close at $1.70 per share on February 19, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 29, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased GRPN securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/grouponinc-grpn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-272/apply
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
Tel: (877) 779-1414
E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
GROUPON INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on April 28, 2020, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against Groupon, Inc. (NASDAQ:
GRPN). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is November 4, 2019 through February 18, 2020.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-groupon-inc/
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Groupon, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than Monday, June 29, 2020 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
To discuss this action, obtain further information and participate
in this or any other securities litigation, contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/[GN]
HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action styled, Boynton Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al.
On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters’
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws.
The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and alleges that the
Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the
value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly
failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as
alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice in a suit against HCRMC
arising from the False Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.
The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys'fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale
Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in
the class action.
The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral
arguments were held on October 23, 2018.
Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were
voluntarily dismissed from the class action lawsuit without
prejudice to such claims being refiled. On November 22, 2019, the
Court granted the motion to dismiss.
On December 20, 2019, Co-Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to amend
the Court's judgment. Defendants' opposition brief was filed on
February 18, 2020, and Co-Lead Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on
April 2, 2020.
The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, Inc. is a diversified
real estate investment trust that owns and develops healthcare real
estate within the United States for Life Science, Senior Housing
and Medical Office. The company is based in Irvine, California.
HELZBERG'S DIAMOND: Misclassifies Store Managers, Martinez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Nourian Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. HELZBERG'S DIAMOND SHOPS, INC., and DOES 1-25
inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01085 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2020), seeks
legal relief to redress the Defendants' unlawful misclassification
of their retail store managers, in violation of the California
Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders,
and the California Unfair Business Practices Act, California
Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant have engaged in unlawful
patterns and practices of misclassifying Retail Store Managers
(collectively "PCMs") as exempt from overtime pay and meal and rest
periods as required by the Labor Code, applicable IWC Wage Orders
and the Business and Professions Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the PCMs do not
qualify for any exemptions to overtime and meal and rest periods
under the applicable law and Wage Order. The Plaintiff and the PCMs
regularly works in excess of eight hours a day and forty hours a
week without being provided overtime compensation. Indeed, the
Defendants expect and require the Plaintiff and the PCMs to work
overtime every week.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on July 11, 2018, and has
been employed as a Retail Store Manager in the Defendant's retail
store in Temecula, California.
Helzberg's Diamond Shops, Inc., is a Missouri corporation that
operates retail jewelry stores throughout the United States,
including at least seventeen retail stores in California under the
name Helzberg Diamonds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
Ryan L. Hicks, Esq.
Eisha Perry, Esq.
HOYER & HICKS
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 766-3539
Fax: (415) 276-1738
Email: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com
rhicks@hoyerlaw.com
eperry@hoyerlaw.com
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Faces Payne Suit Over Failure to Refund Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah Payne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOWARD UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01314-RDB (D. Md.,
May 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Howard, and who,
because of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which
they paid, and/or the services for which their fees paid, without
having their tuition and fees refunded to them.
On March 16, 2020, Howard announced via letter from Howard's
President Wayne A.I. Frederick, M.D., MBA, that Howard was to
suspend "face-to face instruction of courses at Howard University
for the remainder of the Spring 2020 Semester and courses will
continue to transition to remote and online instruction following
the scheduled Spring Break." Thus, Howard has not held any
in-person classes since March 13, 2020. Classes that have continued
have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person
instruction.
As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Mr. Payne and the putative class
contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The online
learning options being offered to Howard students are subpar in
practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials,
and access to faculty. Students have been deprived of the
opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person dialogue,
feedback, and critique. The remote learning options are in no way
the equivalent of the in-person education that the Plaintiff and
the putative class members contracted and paid for.
Nonetheless, the Plaintiff says, Howard has not refunded any
tuition or fees for the Spring 2020 semester. The Plaintiff and the
putative class are, therefore, entitled to a refund of tuition and
fees for in-person educational services, facilities, access and/or
opportunities that the Defendant has not provided. Even if the
Defendant did not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it
nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services it is not
providing, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Mr. Payne was an undergraduate student at majoring in
Political Science during the Spring 2020 Semester.
Howard is a private, federally chartered historically black
university ("HBCU") in Washington, D.C.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William N. Sinclair, Esq.
SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC
201 N. Charles Street, 26th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 385-2225
Facsimile: (410) 547-2432
Email: bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
Miami, FL 33133-5402
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion seeking
dismissal of the consolidated case, Odeh v. Immunomedics, Inc., et
al. and Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., is pending.
A purported class action case was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Odeh v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed December 27, 2018.
The complaint in this action alleges that the Company failed to
disclose the results of observations made by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) during an inspection of the Company's
manufacturing facility in Morris Plains, New Jersey in August 2018.
The complaint alleges that Immunomedics misled investors by failing
to disclose the Form 483 inspection report issued by the FDA which
set forth the observations of the FDA inspector during the
inspection. Such observations purportedly included, inter alia,
manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity
test procedure in the batch record, and backdating of batch
records.
The complaint further alleges that the Company's failure to
disclose the Form 483 resulted in an artificially inflated price
for the company's common stock, and that the Company and certain of
its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
On February 8, 2019, a purported class action case was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;
namely, Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al.
The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
based on claims that the Company violated the federal securities
laws by making alleged misstatements in various press releases and
securities filings from February 8, 2018 to November 7, 2018 and by
failing to disclose the substance of its interactions with the FDA
in connection with the Company's submission of its BLA for
Trodelvy.
Motions for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
and to consolidate the Odeh and Choi actions were granted on
September 10, 2019.
Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by the court on October 7,
2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 18,
2019.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated, amended
complaint on January 17, 2020.
The motion is still pending in front of the court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Fergus Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al.
class action suit, is still pending.
Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 10, 2016.
These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances and
seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the
Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with
respect to the Becker matter).
These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases,
investor conference calls, and filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") beginning in April 2016 that the
Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132
breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical
Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois.
The complaints allege that these statements were false and
misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled
the presentation because it contained previously reported
information.
The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in
artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that the
Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act").
An order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was entered on
November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to
consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and
liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus
matter.
A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 26,
2018. On March 31, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, without prejudice, and left plaintiffs with the ability to
file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days.
Counsel for the Company consented to an extension of time for
plaintiffs to file the proposed amended complaint for an additional
thirty (30) days.
On May 30, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
many of the same allegations that were set forth in the previously
filed complaints, and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Related Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Rasnic, writing for WBOI, reports that IU student Justin
Spiegel is suing the university over COVID-19-related fees and
expenses. His lawyer, Roy Willey of South Carolina, says his
office has received a number of calls from students from multiple
universities.
Wiley said the class-action suit is about fairness.
"The mom and pop bakery down the street can't charge you for a
bagel they don't deliver to you tomorrow," Willey said. "Colleges
and universities should be no different. They shouldn't be able to
charge their customers for services and access they're not
providing."
Willey said his firm has not filed complaints against any other
Indiana schools but didn't rule out the possibility for the
future.
A class action complaint has been filed against the IU Board of
Trustees for COVID-19-related tuition reimbursements.
The complaint was filed May 6, by Indianapolis-based Cox Law Office
and Charleston, South Carolina-based Anastopoulo Law Firm in the
Monroe County Circuit Court.
The plaintiff is Justin Spiegel, an undergraduate student on the
Bloomington campus from Illinois studying informatics, according to
the complaint.
It is outlined in the complaint the university responded
appropriately by moving courses online in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. It also argues that the plaintiff and those similarly
affected should be reimbursed on a pro-rated basis for tuition and
fees for services the university allegedly is not providing.
When asked about the complaint, IU spokesperson Chuck Carney
provided the following statement.
"In the midst of a global pandemic that has wreaked havoc on our
entire way of life, Indiana University has acted responsibly to
keep our students safe and progressing in their education. We are
deeply disappointed that this lawsuit fails to recognize the
extraordinary efforts of our faculty, staff, and students under
these conditions while it seeks to take advantage in this time of
state and national emergency."
Claims made in a lawsuit reflect only one side of the case. [GN]
INFOSYS LIMITED: New York Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Infosys Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2020, that the purported class action suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has been voluntarily dismissed.
On October 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
purportedly for violations of the US federal securities laws.
On May 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed a stipulation which
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.
Infosys Limited, is an Indian multinational corporation that
provides business consulting, information technology and
outsourcing services. It has its headquarters in Bangalore,
Karnataka, India.
JACOB KOSTECKI: Faces Class Action Over Canceled Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kaaru, writing for Coin Geek, reports that the organizer of a
digital currency conference, dubbed "Massive Adoption," is facing a
massive class-action lawsuit after failing to repay the attendees
as promised when he cancelled the event.
Jacob Kostecki was scheduled to host the event on February 27-28,
2020, in Memphis, Tennessee. In the months leading to the event, he
sold packages that included tickets to the event, accommodation and
plane tickets to around 2,000 people. What was eye-catching was the
surprisingly low prices he offered, with packages going for as low
as $400. He ended up collecting $75,000 in the process.
In late January, Kostecki announced that he had cancelled the
conference due to cash issues, but promised to pay back all the
attendees. Three months later, the attendees have yet to receive a
penny.
The lawsuit was filed by David Silver, a partner at Silver Miller,
a law firm with expertise in the digital currency field. Silver
says that he took the action because he felt Kostecki was taking
advantage of people who couldn't afford legal representation.
Silver took to Twitter to explain why his firm had taken up the
case, calling Kostecki out for making empty promises on Twitter.
And while law firms usually take a cut once a class-action lawsuit
is settled, Silver revealed that his firm will take on the case
pro-bono. The goal is to maximize the victims' recovery, he
stated.
Silver had tried to settle the case out of court, he revealed,
stating, "We approached Mr. Kostecki several weeks ago with a
simple offer to resolve the debts he has already acknowledged he
owes to the would-be Massive Adoption attendees. Mr. Kostecki
declined our simple offer and instead thinks that blaming the
worldwide health crisis and making more empty, time-delaying
promises on Twitter is his way out of this."
The saga has led to heightened scrutiny of Kostecki's past, and the
revelations have been damning. Having moved to the U.S. in 2014
from his homeland in Poland, he has used the opportunity to
allegedly scam Polish startups, promising them connections to
American investors. According to multiple reports in Poland, he
would allegedly take money from the startups and promise to help
them get their products to the United States, only to disappear
with the funds. [GN]
JACOBS ENGINEERING: Roane County Resident's Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the company and
Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") continue to defend a putative
class action suit initiated by a resident of Roane County.
On December 22, 2008, a coal fly ash pond at the Kingston Power
Plant of the Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") was breached,
releasing fly ash waste into the Emory River and surrounding
community.
In February 2009, TVA awarded a contract to the Company to provide
project management services associated with the clean-up. All
remediation and dredging were completed in August 2013 by other
contractors under direct contracts with TVA. The Company did not
perform the remediation, and its scope was limited to program
management services.
Certain employees of the contractors performing the cleanup work on
the project filed lawsuits against the Company beginning in August
2013, alleging they were injured due to the Company's failure to
protect the plaintiffs from exposure to fly ash, and asserting
related personal injuries.
There are currently six separate cases pending against the Company.
The primary case, Greg Adkisson, et al. v. Jacobs Engineering Group
Inc., case No. 3:13-CV-505-TAV-HBG, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, consists of 10
consolidated cases.
This case and the related cases involve several hundred plaintiffs
that have been filed against the Company by employees of the
contractors that completed the remediation and dredging work.
The cases are at various stages of litigation, and several of the
cases are currently stayed pending resolution of other cases.
Separately, in May 2019, Roane County and the cities of King and
Herriman filed a claim against TVA and the Company alleging that
they misled the public about risks associated with the released fly
ash.
In December 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
a portion of the plaintiffs' complaint and scheduled this matter
for trial in 2021 with respect to the remaining claims.
In addition, in November 2019, a resident of Roane County filed a
putative class action against TVA and the Company alleging they
failed to adequately warn local residents about risks associated
with the released fly ash. There has been no finding of liability
against the Company or that any of the alleged illnesses are the
result of exposure to fly ash in any of the above matters. The
Company disputes the claims asserted in all of the above matters
and is vigorously defending these claims.
Jacobs said, "The Company does not expect the resolution of these
matters to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., is a
global provider of technical, professional, and scientific
services, including engineering, architecture, construction,
operations and maintenance.
JAMIL LIQUORS: Ramirez Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HERMINIO GARCIA RAMIREZ, JORGE GARCIA, and LUIS ALBERTO ROSALES
ARELLANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. JAMIL LIQUORS, INC. (D/B/A EAST RIVER LIQUORS), ATA MOHAMMAD,
SAMMY OWAT, and JIMMY DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03841 (S.D.N.Y., May
18, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff contends that they worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay them
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium.
The Plaintiffs were employed as stockers and delivery workers at
the Defendants' liquor store. The Plaintiffs allege that they were
ostensibly employed as delivery workers. However, they aver, they
were required to spend a considerable part of their work day
performing non-tipped duties, including mopping, sweeping, taking
out trash, bringing boxes from basement to the store, bringing
supplies from the truck to the store and stocking the shelves
(non-tipped duties).
The Defendants own, operate, or control a liquor store, located at
1364 York Avenue, in New York City, under the name "East River
Liquors."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Cambridge Retirement System Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Cambridge
Retirement System v. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., et al.
On February 19, 2020, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia against the Company, current and former
Company executives and various Onex-related entities alleging
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as
well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants and Onex-related entities.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the action.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Trial in Molded Doors Suit Set for January 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that trial in the class
action suit entitled, In Re: Interior Molded Doors Antitrust
Litigation has been set for January 2021.
On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and one of its competitors in the doors market,
Masonite Corporation ("Masonite"), in the Eastern District of
Virginia.
The company subsequently received additional complaints from and on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of interior molded doors.
The suits have been consolidated into two separate actions, a
Direct Purchaser Action and an Indirect Purchaser Action.
The company said, "The suits allege that Masonite and we violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and in the Indirect Purchaser Action,
related state law antitrust and consumer protection laws, by
engaging in a scheme to artificially raise, fix, maintain or
stabilize the prices of interior molded doors in the United States.
The complaints seek unquantified ordinary and treble damages,
declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees."
The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the actions.
On September 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss the lawsuits in their entirety and granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss various state law claims and to limit all claims
to a four-year statute of limitations.
As a result, the plaintiffs' damages period is limited to the
four-year period between 2014 and 2018. Trial in the two matters
has been set for January 2021.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
K ALLRED OILFIELD: Kerr Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & NMMWA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BILLY KERR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. K. ALLRED OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC d/b/a KAOS and KEITH
ALLRED, Case No. 1:20-cv-00477 (D.N.M., May 19, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendants
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and the other workers like him were
typically scheduled for 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week, and their
hitches routinely lasted for weeks at a time. He and those
similarly situated often worked even more than that, but they were
not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek. He adds that instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA and the NMMWA, Kaos improperly classified them
as independent contractors and paid them a single dayrate for all
hours worked.
Mr. Kerr worked for the Defendants from May 2019 until November
2019.
K. Allred offers services and rental equipment. Keith Allred was an
owner of Allred Oilfield.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: 713 999 5228
Facsimile: 713 999 1187
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
700 West Summit Dr.
Wimberley, TX 78676
Telephone: 512 782 0567
Facsimile: 512 782 0605
E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
KAY IVEY: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Dixon Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DARRYL LYNN DIXON v. KAY
IVEY, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00248-WHA-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon.
Judge Harold Albritton entered an order:
1. adopting the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge;
2. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
3. referring back the case, with respect to the claims
presented by the plaintiff, to the Magistrate Judge
assigned this case for further appropriate proceedings.
[CC]
LAYMA LLC: Faces Salinardi Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Salinardi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LAYMA, LLC, DBA LITTLE LAKE LENDING and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:20-cv-00970 (C.D. Cal.,
May 27, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby,
invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
The Company used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place
its calls to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services,
according to the complaint. The Company did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on its cellular telephone. The Company called the Plaintiff
in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the
Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.
The Plaintiff is natural persons residing in Orange County,
California.
Layma, LLC, doing business as Little Lake Lending, is a money
lending company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Accardo Class Action Now Concluded
----------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, Accardo v. Lending Club, et al., 2:18-cv-05030-JS-AKT has
been concluded.
In September 2018, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
State of New York (Accardo v. Lending Club, et al.,
2:18-cv-05030-JS-AKT) asserting an individual claim under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act against the Company.
In early 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his
complaint in the case to assert a putative class claim under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiff's proposed amended
complaint contends that LendingClub failed to conduct a reasonable
investigation into plaintiff’s identity theft dispute and
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals. The Company filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend and also filed a motion to compel arbitration of
plaintiff's claim against the Company on an individual basis.
The Court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration and
ordered a trial on whether an arbitration agreement exists between
the Company and Plaintiff.
The Court also denied without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend.
LendingClub said, "The Company has finalized a settlement with the
plaintiff to resolve this matter, the terms of which are not
material to the Company's financial position or results of
operations. This matter is now concluded."
LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Shron Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
compel arbitration in the class action suit entitled, Shron v.
LendingClub Corp., 1:19-cv-06718, to compel arbitration of
plaintiff's claims on an individual basis, is still pending.
In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal court in the State of New York (Shron v.
LendingClub Corp., 1:19-cv-06718) alleging various claims including
fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of the
federal Truth-in-Lending Act and New York General Business Law
sections 349 and 350, et seq., based on allegations, among others,
that the Company made misleading or inadequate statements or
omissions in relation to the total cost and origination fee
associated with loans available through the Company's platform.
The plaintiff seeks to represent classes of similarly situated
individuals in the lawsuit.
The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's
claims on an individual basis. The timing of a ruling on that
motion is unclear.
LendingClub said, "This matter is in the early stages. The Company
denies and will vigorously defend against the allegations. No
assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences
of this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Dismiss Erceg Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a motion to dismiss
certain of plaintiff's claims, strike nationwide class allegations,
and, alternatively, to stay the putative class action suit
entitled, Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01153.
In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of
California (Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01153).
The lawsuit alleges violations of California and Massachusetts law
based on allegations that LendingClub recorded a call with
plaintiff without notifying him that it would be recorded.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of similarly
situated individuals who had phone calls recorded by LendingClub
without their knowledge and consent. LendingClub filed a motion to
dismiss certain of plaintiff's claims, strike nationwide class
allegations, and, alternatively, to stay the litigation.
LendingClub saids, "No assurances can be given as to the timing,
outcome or consequences of this matter."
LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Dismiss Veal Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in Veal v. LendingClub
Corporation et al., No. 5:18-cv-02599, is pending.
In May 2018, following the announcement of the Federal Trade
Commission's (FTC's) litigation against the Company, putative
shareholder class action litigation was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Northern District of California (Veal v. LendingClub
Corporation et al., No. 5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with the
Company's description of fees and compliance with federal privacy
law in securities filings.
The Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the
litigation in November 2018. On January 7, 2019, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
which asserts the same causes of action as the original complaint
and adds additional allegations.
On March 8, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants in the
case filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint. A hearing on these motions was held on September 26,
2019.
On November 4, 2019, the Court issued a written order granting
defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 19, 2019,
which modifies and adds certain allegations and drops one of the
former officer defendants as a defendant in the case, but otherwise
advances the same causes of action.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on January 28, 2020. The Court heard argument on this motion on
April 30, 2020.
The Court has not yet issued a decision on this motion. This
lawsuit is in the early stages.
The Company denies and will vigorously defend against the
allegations.
LendingClub said, "No assurances can be given as to the timing,
outcome or consequences of this matter."
LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.
LOANCARE LLC: Faces Pritchard Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY M. PRITCHARD, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. LOANCARE, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02356 (W.D. Tenn., May
19, 2020), alleges that LoanCare routinely breaches the uniform
terms of borrowers' mortgages by charging and collecting illegal
processing fees when borrowers pay their monthly mortgage by phone
or online.
The Plaintiff contends that LoanCare illegally charges homeowners
fees between $5.00 and $15.00 for each online and telephone
payment. LoanCare is compensated a fixed amount per-loan for
providing subservicing responsibilities. In addition, LoanCare is
authorized to keep certain fees that are lawfully assessed to
borrowers, including late fees.
Ms. Pritchard owned property in Adamsville, Tennessee, that was
secured by a mortgage. LoanCare became the servicer of the mortgage
approximately one month after closing on the purchase of her home.
LoanCare is a loan servicer that operates across the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
518 Monroe Street
Nashville, TN 37208
Telephone: 615-921-6500
Facsimile: 615-921-6501
E-mail: caroline@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
P.O. Box 12638
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone: 919-600-5000
Facsimile: 919-600-5035
E-mails: scott@whitfieldbryson.com
jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com
pat@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
Asa C. Edwards, Esq.
MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: 919 526-0450
Facsimile: 919 882-8763
E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com
aedwards@maginnislaw.com
LOUISIANA: COVID-19 Policies Violate Constitution, JH Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.H., by and through his mother and next friend, N.H.; I.B., by and
through his parents and next friends, A.B. and I.B., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00293-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., May 14, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other children similarly situated,
as well as those children, who may in the future be subject to
confinement in one of the four Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice
facilities throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for the
Defendants to comply with basic constitutional guarantees against
cruel and unusual punishment and due process of law.
Louisiana is among the hardest hit states in the United States,
with approximately 32,000 confirmed cases and over 2,300 deaths to
date. The Plaintiffs contend that while Louisiana has encouraged
people in most communities to practice social isolation and
heightened hygiene measures to protect themselves from COVID-19, it
is impossible for individuals, who are incarcerated to adhere to
such protective measures. Incarcerated individuals live in close
and crowded quarters, have limited access to soap or other
sanitizing agents, and are unable to take basic steps to clean
their own living surroundings. The Plaintiffs add that the
correctional facilities, including juvenile correctional
facilities, such as OJJ's four secure facilities, are among the top
"hotspots" for coronavirus transmission in the country.
The Defendants include THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE;
EDWARD DUSTIN BICKHAM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS INTERIM DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE; JAMES WOODS,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ACADIANA CENTER FOR
YOUTH; SHANNON MATTHEWS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR
OF THE BRIDGE CITY CENTER FOR YOUTH; SHAWN HERBERT, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT MONROE;
and RODNEY WARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT COLUMBIA.
The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are children, who have been adjudicated
delinquent and are currently confined in one of four secure care
facilities operated by the Louisiana OJJ. These facilities are:
Acadiana Center for Youth in Bunkie; Bridge City Center for Youth;
Swanson Center for Youth Columbia; and Swanson Center for Youth
Monroe.
John Bel Edwards is the Governor of Louisiana. Louisiana is a
southeastern U.S. state on the Gulf of Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mercedes Montagnes, Esq.
Nishi Kumar, Esq.
THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70117
Telephone: (504) 529-5955
Facsimile: (504) 595-8006
E-mail: mmontagnes@defendla.org
- and -
Lisa Pensabene, Esq.
Laura Aronsson, Esq.
Mariam Kamran, Esq.
Brandon Amash, Esq.
Benjamin Singer, Esq.
Jason Yan, Esq.
David Lash, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
E-mail: ssarnoff@omm.com
bamash@omm.com
bsinger@omm.com
dlash@omm.com
- and -
John Adcock, Esq.
ADCOCK LAW LLC
3110 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 233-3125
E-mail: jnadcock@gmail.com
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss Local 322 Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the company's to
dismiss or stay the putative class action suit initiated bythe
United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern
New Jersey ("Local 322"), remains pending.
In November 2019, the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters
Local 322 of Southern New Jersey ("Local 322") filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company and other defendants in
New Jersey state court on behalf of New Jersey and third party
payers for alleged deceptive marketing and anti-competitive conduct
related to the sale and distribution of Acthar Gel.
The complaint asserts claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, the New Jersey Antitrust Act, the New Jersey Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute, negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy/aiding and abetting and unjust
enrichment.
The proposed class is defined as "All third-party payors and their
beneficiaries (1) who are current citizens and residents of the
State of New Jersey, and (2) who, for purposes other than resale,
purchased or paid for Acthar Gel from August 27, 2007 through the
present."
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this action and,
in January 2020, after removing the complaint to federal court in
New Jersey, moved to dismiss or stay the case. The Company's
motions to dismiss or stay remain pending.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss MSP Recovery Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, MSP Recovery Claims, Series
II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al., has been
granted.
In October 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
Pursuant to a motion filed by the defendants, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in January 2018, and is currently proceeding as MSP
Recovery Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2018, which was
granted in January 2019 with leave to amend. MSP filed the
operative First Amended Class Action Complaint on April 10, 2019,
in which it asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws
and state consumer protection laws and names additional defendants.
The complaint alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a
monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S.
rights to Synacthen(R) Depot ("Synacthen") and reaching
anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling
Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all third-party
payers, or their assignees, in the U.S. and its territories, who
have, as indirect purchasers, in whole or in part, paid for,
provided reimbursement for, and/or possess the recovery rights to
reimbursement for the indirect purchase of Acthar Gel from August
1, 2007 to present.
In March 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with leave to amend.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Rockford v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.
In April 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al. The complaint was subsequently amended to, among other
things, include an additional named plaintiff and additional
defendants. As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories,
excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities
and certain others, that paid for Acthar Gel from August 2007 to
the present.
Plaintiff alleges violations of federal antitrust and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) laws, as well as
various state law claims in connection with the distribution and
sale of Acthar Gel.
In January 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, which was granted in part in January 2019. The
court dismissed one of two named plaintiffs and all claims with the
exception of Plaintiff's federal and state antitrust claims.
The remaining allegation in the case is that the Company engaged in
anti-competitive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price
of Acthar Gel.
To this end, Plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen and conspired with the other
named defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive
distributor.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MANNKIND CORP: Order Denying Bid to Amend Complaint Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiff in the
putative class action suit in Israel has taken an appeal from a
court decision that denied his motion to amend his claim to the
Supreme Court of Israel.
Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to terminate
the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline in the
company's stock price, two motions were submitted to the district
court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the certification of a
class action against MannKind and certain of its officers and
directors.
In general, the complaints allege that MannKind and certain of its
officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price of
its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.
In November 2016, the district court dismissed one of the actions
without prejudice.
In the remaining action, the district court ruled in October 2017
that U.S. law will apply to this case.
The plaintiff appealed this ruling, and following an oral hearing
before the Supreme Court of Israel, decided to withdraw his appeal.
Subsequently, in November 2018, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the certification motion.
In September 2019, the plaintiff brought a motion to amend his
claim, which the court denied in January 2020.
The plaintiff has appealed this denial to the Supreme Court of
Israel.
MannKind said, "We will continue to vigorously defend against the
claims advanced."
MannKind Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of inhaled therapeutic products
for diabetes and pulmonary arterial hypertension patients. MannKind
Corporation was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Westlake
Village, California.
MASONITE INT'L: Virginia Court Extends Deadlines by 60 Days
-----------------------------------------------------------
Masonite International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia overseeing the
putative antitrust class action cases has extended all case
deadlines by 60 days at the parties' request due to the ongoing
coronavirus pandemic.
With respect to the putative antitrust class action cases pending
in the Eastern District of Virginia, the parties are in the midst
of class certification briefing and expert discovery.
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, on March 17, 2020, the
Court extended all case deadlines by 60 days at the parties'
request. Expert discovery is now expected to close in June 2020.
Briefing on class certification discovery is expected to be
completed by June 9, 2020. Briefing on dispositive motions is
expected to be completed by September 7, 2020.
The Court has reset the presumptive trial date as January 11, 2021.
On May 4, 2020, the Court ruled on Defendants' December 16, 2019,
partial motion to dismiss plaintiffs' reinstated claims, granting
it in part and denying it in part.
By granting the motion in part, the Court dismissed the indirect
purchasers' claims under Kansas, Utah and Virginia consumer
protection laws and it also limited the time period during which
indirect purchasers from Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire,
North Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin could
claim damages.
Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and
distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction
and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential
and non-residential building construction markets worldwide.
Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Tampa, Florida.
MATTEL INC: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of California Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the Court of Appeals has affirmed the
dismissal of the consolidated class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
A purported class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California,
(consolidating Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System
v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed June 27, 2017; and Lathe v. Mattel,
Inc., et al., filed July 6, 2017) against Mattel, Christopher A.
Sinclair, Richard Dickson, Kevin M. Farr, and Joseph B. Johnson
alleging federal securities laws violations in connection with
statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period
October 20, 2016 through April 20, 2017.
In general, the lawsuit asserts allegations that the defendants
artificially inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly
making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to
the investing public about retail customer inventory, the alignment
between point-of-sale and shipping data, and Mattel's overall
financial condition.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' conduct caused the
plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at
artificially inflated prices.
On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Mattel's motion to dismiss the
class action lawsuit, and on June 25, 2018, the plaintiff filed a
motion informing the Court he would not be filing an amended
complaint.
Judgment was entered in favor of Mattel and the individual
defendants on September 19, 2018. The plaintiff filed his Notice of
Appeal on October 16, 2018 and his opening appellate brief on
February 25, 2019. On April 26, 2019, Mattel filed its responsive
appellate brief, and on June 17, 2019, plaintiff filed his reply
brief.
Oral argument occurred on February 4, 2020, and on February 20,
2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit.
Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.
MATTEL INC: Faces Whistleblower Class Suits
-------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been named as a
defendant in class action suits related to a whistleblower letter
and claim that the company misled the market in several of its
financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017.
In December 2019 and January 2020, two stockholders filed separate
complaints styled as class actions against Mattel, Inc., and
certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The complaints rely on the results of an investigation announced by
Mattel in October 2019 regarding allegations in a whistleblower
letter and claim that Mattel misled the market in several of its
financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017.
The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the
plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at
artificially inflated prices.
In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Moher v.
Kreiz, et al., filed April 9, 2020) making allegations that are
substantially identical to, or are based upon, the allegations of
the class action lawsuits.
The defendants in the derivative action are Ynon Kreiz, Margaret H.
Georgiadis, Joseph J. Euteneuer, Joseph B. Johnson, R. Todd
Bradley, Adriana Cisneros, Michael J. Dolan, Trevor A. Edwards,
Frances D. Fergusson, Soren T. Laursen, Ann Lewnes, Kathy W. Loyd,
Roger Lynch, Dominic Ng, Judy D. Olian, Vasant M. Prabhu, Dean A.
Scarborough, Christopher A. Sinclair, Mattel, Inc., and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Subsequently, a nearly identical
derivative action was filed by a different stockholder against the
same defendants (Lombardi v. Kreiz, et al., filed April 16, 2020).
The second lawsuit is styled as an amended complaint and replaces a
complaint making unrelated allegations in a previously filed
lawsuit already pending in Delaware federal court.
The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, expert fees, costs and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes
that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.
Mattel said, "A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time."
Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.
MATTEL INC: Still Defends Class Suits over Fisher-Price Sleeper
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a number
of putative class action lawsuits related to the Fisher-Price Rock
'n Play Sleeper.
A number of putative class action lawsuits are pending against
Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false
advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud,
and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper.
In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have
been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight
sleep for infants.
The putative class action lawsuits propose nationwide and over 15
statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the
Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep.
The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge for
pre-trial purposes pursuant to the federal courts' Multi-District
Litigation program.
Thirty-one additional lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price,
Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper
caused the fatalities of or injuries to 35 children.
Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. have also
received letters from lawyers purporting to represent additional
plaintiffs who are threatening to assert similar claims.
The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief.
Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Mattel said, "A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.
MERCEDES-BENZ: Two UK Law Firms Mull Diesel Emission Group Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marsden, writing for The Daily Mail, reports that thousands
of motorists could join a legal case against Mercedes-Benz,
claiming the car giant sought to 'cheat' in diesel emission tests.
Two law firms in the UK are said to be investigating the
possibility of bringing a group case in the High Court against the
German company.
Lawyers claim they have 'overwhelming evidence' of wrongdoing and
accused the manufacturer of 'deceiving the car-buying public'.
If the case goes ahead, MercedesBenz would be the second carmaker
hit by the 'Dieselgate' scandal since allegations surfaced against
Volkswagen in 2015.
The case against Mercedes is set to concentrate on claims made
about its AdBlue technology.
It was claimed AdBlue would reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions to
create 'our cleanest diesel cars ever'.
But legal firms Slater and Gordon and Leigh Day allege AdBlue
vehicles contain unlawful 'defeat devices' which manipulate results
of emissions tests.
The firms say more than 80,000 people in the UK own AdBlue vehicles
and could join the group claim.
The companies are already involved in class action on behalf of UK
motorists against Volkswagen.
Karolina Kupczyk, of Slater and Gordon, said: 'There is
overwhelming evidence that Mercedes sold highly-polluting vehicles
which did not comply with regulations intended to reduce emissions
of dangerous NOx emissions.'
"Customers who bought affected models may have a claim for
compensation against Mercedes. We intend to hold this carmaker to
account for deceiving the carbuying public."
She added: "Mercedes traded heavily on the image of being green,
environmentally friendly and producing efficient diesel cars. We
can now see that customers and regulators have been deceived."
Bozena Michalowska Howells, of Leigh Day, said: "It now seems that
the promise of 'cleaner' diesel using AdBlue technology does not
stand up to scrutiny.
"We believe that vehicle manufacturers should not get away with the
prohibited practice of using defeat devices which allows them to
trick regulators and consumers across the globe in order to
increase or maintain their sale volumes, whilst their vehicles pump
out much higher levels of harmful NOx gases than they have
advertised."
The announcement of possible legal action comes a month after
90,000 motorists who bought or leased certain VW, Audi, Seat and
Skoda diesel vehicles won the first round of a legal battle.
The High Court ruled Volkswagen installed unlawful defeat devices
in thousands of affected vehicles.
The customers' lawyers said the devices meant the vehicles were
emitting up to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen dioxide when
out on the road.
The firm is currently appealing against that ruling. In September
2015, Volkswagen announced that 11 million vehicles worldwide,
including almost 1.2 million in the UK, were affected.
The scandal has seen VW pay out more than GBP26 billion in fines,
recall costs and civil settlements, and has led to criminal charges
against some employees.
Daimler, the parent company of Mercedes-Benz, has said: "We believe
that the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend
against any group action." [GN]
MERCK & CO: Faces Bravecto Related Suit
---------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a complaint seeking to certify a nationwide
class action of purchasers or users of Bravecto.
In January 2020, the Company was served with a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
seeking to certify a nationwide class action of purchasers or users
of Bravecto (fluralaner) products in the United States or its
territories between May 1, 2014 and December 27, 2019.
The complaint contends Bravecto causes neurological events and
alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Breach of
Warranty, Product Liability, and related theories.
A similar case was filed in Quebec, Canada in May 2019.
Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.
MERCK & CO: Trial in Suit Over Zetia Sales Rescheduled to 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that trial in the class
action suit related to the sales of Zetia, a high blood cholesterol
drug, has been rescheduled to begin on February 23, 2021.
As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
(MSD), Schering Corporation and MSP Singapore Company LLC
(collectively, the Merck Defendants) are defendants in putative
class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct
and indirect purchasers of Zetia alleging violations of federal and
state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common
law causes of action.
The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the
Eastern District of Virginia.
In December 2018, the court denied the Merck Defendant' motions to
dismiss or stay the direct purchaser putative class actions pending
bilateral arbitration. In August 2019, the district court adopted
in full the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge with
respect to the Merck Defendants' motions to dismiss on
non-arbitration issues, thereby granting in part and denying in
part Merck Defendants' motions to dismiss.
In addition, in June 2019, the representatives of the putative
direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint, and in August
2019, retailer opt-out plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The Merck Defendants moved to dismiss the new allegations in both
complaints. In October 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation recommending that the district judge grant the
motions in their entirety.
In December 2019, the district court adopted this report and
recommendation in part. The district court granted the Merck
Defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent the motion sought
dismissal of claims for overcharges paid by entities that purchased
generic ezetimibe from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Par
Pharmaceutical) and dismissed any claims for such overcharges.
Trial in this matter has been rescheduled to begin on February 23,
2021.
Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.
MOHAMMAD AL-MOJIL: Clyde & Co. Attorneys Discuss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saud Alsaab, Esq. -- saud.alsaab@clydeco.com -- and Robert James,
Esq., of Clyde & Co, disclosed that in 2017, the Capital Market
Authority in Saudi Arabia introduced a new class action regime for
claims by shareholders of listed companies in the Kingdom. In this
article, Clyde & Co looks at the conclusion of Saudi Arabia's first
class action, specifically the recently announced decision by the
CRSD Appeals Committee.
Saudi Arabia's first class action
Since the regime was introduced, there has only been one class
action admitted by the Committees for the Resolution of Securities
Disputes (CRSD), the specialist tribunal for securities disputes in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) (see our first article on this
subject here).
That class action was originally registered by a claimant
shareholder against the former Board of Directors of the
construction services contractor, Mohammad Al-Mojil Group (MMG),
its senior management and its auditor for alleged violations
committed during the subscription in MMG's shares as part of its
2008 IPO. Approval from the CRSD to consolidate the class action
was issued by way of a decision, dated on February 4, 2019.
The CRSD Appeals Committee's decision
In a significant development, the CRSD Appeals Committee's
decision, dated March 2, 2020, in relation to this
first-of-its-kind class action, was formally announced in a press
release dated April 27, 2020. Materially, and in addition to the
claimant shareholders being awarded compensation to be collected
from the illegal gains realised by the first defendant in the
action, the co-defendants to the action were also held liable to
contribute to any excess amounts (not capable of being satisfied by
the gains of the first defendant) due to the claimant shareholders,
in 'combination'.
Although the basis on which the co-defendants in this action will
be expected to contribute in 'combination' to any excess amounts,
or how, in practice, such proportions will be paid and in what
order, remains unclear, the decision is an important development
that evidences the CRSD's willingness to deal with multi-party
litigation in a more efficient and consistent manner.
There are currently a number of shareholder disputes being dealt
with by the CRSD and it will be interesting to see whether the
decision in the MMG matter will encourage claimant shareholders to
seek to consolidate those proceedings into a class action in the
same way. [GN]
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Satam Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
------------------------------------------------------------
Gaurav Satam, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Northeastern University, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-10915 (D. Mass., May 13, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals; injunctive relief including enjoining Northeastern
College from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for
tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals; reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and expenses; prejudgment and post-judgment interest on
any amounts awarded; and such other and further relief as may be
just and proper; and refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata
basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.
Northeastern is a private university system consisting of six
campuses, with the primary campus in Boston where Satam recently
concluded coursework for a Masters' degree in engineering
management. Northeastern decided to close campus, constructively
evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote
format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Satam claims
to be deprived the benefits of in-person instruction, access to
campus facilities, student activities and other benefits and
services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and
tuition. Northeastern refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold Lichten, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
- and -
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: scarson@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
ORCHARD VILLA: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Privacy Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Powell, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a Pickering
long-term-care home that is one of Ontario's hardest hit by
COVID-19 is investigating the possibility of a privacy breach with
the release of resident personal health information, according to a
government minister.
"Our government takes personal privacy very seriously, and we are
continuing to monitor this situation closely," Long-Term Care
Minister Merrilee Fullerton wrote in a series of tweets sent on the
weekend.
Orchard Villa has notified the Information and Privacy Commissioner
Office and an internal investigation has been conducted into the
"possibility of a privacy breach of personal health information,"
Jason Gay, the home's executive director, wrote in an email. "We
will not be commenting further at this time."
Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP for Pickering-Uxbridge, released a
statement that said Orchard Villa is contacting the residents and
families who may have been impacted by the unauthorized release of
information.
According to Durham Region Public Health's virus tracker on May 10,
66 residents of Orchard Villa long-term care and retirement home
have died of COVID-19 since an outbreak was declared at the 233-bed
facility in March. It's owned by Southbridge Care Homes, based in
Cambridge, Ont.
A letter sent by Southbridge on May 7 to families of Orchard Villa
residents said that with the help of support teams, including
members of the Canadian military, "important progress" has been
made in the fight against the deadly virus.
Contacted by the Star, personal-injury lawyer Gary Will said a
privacy breach is "indicative of some serious problems at Orchard
Villa." His law firm is investigating the facility while deciding
whether to launch a class-action lawsuit against the owners.
He notes Orchard Villa has a history of pre-COVID infractions. He
counted more than 15 over the last three years, including lack of
proper care.
On May 9, Pickering Deputy Mayor Kevin Ashe released a statement
saying that he has tested positive for COVID-19 and is in
self-isolation for the next two weeks. Ashe wrote while he's not
certain, he may have contracted the virus from his daughter, "who
is a proud and dedicated personal support worker at Orchard Villa."
[GN]
PHOENIX TREE: Thornton Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thornton Law Firm LLP announces a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Phoenix Tree Holdings
Limited (DNK). Investors who purchased DNK securities in connection
with the IPO on January 22, 2020, are encouraged to visit
https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/DNK. Investors may also contact
Thornton Law Firm at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call 617-531-3917.
Investors outside the USA, including derivative investors, are
encouraged to contact Thornton Law Firm to discuss their potential
recovery rights.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/DNK
Interested DNK shareholders have until June 26, 2020 to apply to be
a lead plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, and the class has not yet been certified. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member. There is no minimum number of shares required to be a class
member.
Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited is a Cayman Islands holding company
that leases and manages apartments in China, which it rents to
tenants under the Danke Apartment and Dream Apartment brands. It is
alleged that at the time of its IPO, Phoenix generated revenue
primarily from rents and service fees and that as of September 30,
2019, it operated in 13 cities in China, including Wuhan, where a
portion of its 5,000-plus employees worked.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Materials connected to the
company's IPO omitted the following facts: (1) Phoenix received
complaints and negative press concerning its questionable business
conduct before the IPO, including its misleading practice of
deceptively persuading renters to procure loans whose proceeds
financed the Company's business and operations; (2) that
competition in the residential rental market in China dropped
significantly at the time of the IPO, especially in Wuhan, the
epicenter of the Coronavirus pandemic, as the Coronavirus spread
throughout the very locations where Phoenix operated; (3) that
Phoenix's technological capabilities could not enable the Company
to surmount the complications and erosion of business due to the
spread of the Coronavirus throughout China at the time of the IPO;
(4) that Phoenix was competing with extremely adverse developments
in China at the time of the IPO due to the Coronavirus that
presented events, risks and uncertainties that were reasonably
likely to materially affect Phoenix's business, operations and
financial condition, including a material increase in renter
complaints and negative press and the prospect that renters could
not continue to pay rent and service fees under conditions then
existing as of the IPO; (5) consequently, Phoenix was positioned no
differently than its competitors in managing the fallout from
customer complaints or adverse implications stemming from the
coronavirus in China and (6) as a result, Phoenix's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
If you are an investor that suffered losses in DNK, and wish to
participate, learn more, or discuss the issues surrounding the
lawsuit, please contact
Thornton Law Firm
Shareholder Rights Team
State Street Financial Center
1 Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
E-mail: shareholder@tenlaw.com
Tel: 617-531-3917
Web site: http://www.tenlaw.com/cases/DNK
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in
recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its
attorneys have established track records litigating securities
cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on
behalf of shareholders. [GN]
POPE RESOURCES: Laidlaw Suit over Merger Deal Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Pope Resources Ltd. Partnership said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the putative
stockholder class action suit entitled, Laidlaw v. Pope Resources,
et al., No. 20-2-00755-18, has been settled and dismissed.
On April 14, 2020, a purported unitholder of the Partnership filed
a putative stockholder class action complaint against the
Partnership, its Board of Directors and Rayonier alleging, among
other things, that members of the Board of Directors breached their
duty of loyalty under the Partnership's limited partnership
agreement and Delaware law in connection with entering into the
Merger Agreement with Rayonier, and that Rayonier aided and abetted
such breach, and that the Definitive Proxy Statement dated April 6,
2020 misrepresents or omits material information.
The plaintiff sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed
Merger, an award of compensatory and/or rescissory damages and
plaintiffs’ costs, including attorneys' fees.
This lawsuit is captioned Laidlaw v. Pope Resources, et al., No.
20-2-00755-18, and was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington in Kitsap County.
This lawsuit was settled and dismissed on or about April 29, 2020.
Pope Resources Ltd. Partnership operates in three primary business
segments: Fee Timber, Timberland Management & Consulting, and Real
Estate. Fee Timber segment includes timberlands owned directly by
the Partnership and operations of two private equity funds.
Timberland Management is engaged in organizing and managing private
equity timber funds using capital invested by third parties and the
Partnership. Real Estate activities primarily take the form of
securing permits, entitlements, and, in some cases, installing
infrastructure for raw land development and then realizing that
land's value by selling larger parcels to buyers who will take the
land further up the value chain by either selling homes to retail
buyers or lots to developers of commercial property.
POPE RESOURCES: Thompson Class Suit over Merger Deal Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pope Resources Ltd. Partnership said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, Thompson v. Pope Resources, et al., No. 1:20-CV-00432,
has been settled and dismissed.
On March 26, 2020, a purported unitholder of the Partnership filed
a putative stockholder class action complaint against the
Partnership, its Board of Directors, Rayonier, OpCo, Merger Sub 1,
Merger Sub 2, Merger Sub 3, MGP and EGP alleging that, among other
things, the Definitive Proxy Statement dated April 6, 2020
contained materially incomplete and misleading information in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiff sought, among other things, to enjoin the pending
merger between the Partnership and Rayonier and its subsidiaries,
an award of rescissory damages and plaintiffs' costs, including
attorneys' fees.
This lawsuit is captioned Thompson v. Pope Resources, et al., No.
1:20-CV-00432, and also was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware.
This lawsuit was settled and dismissed on or about April 29, 2020.
Pope Resources Ltd. Partnership operates in three primary business
segments: Fee Timber, Timberland Management & Consulting, and Real
Estate. Fee Timber segment includes timberlands owned directly by
the Partnership and operations of two private equity funds.
Timberland Management is engaged in organizing and managing private
equity timber funds using capital invested by third parties and the
Partnership. Real Estate activities primarily take the form of
securing permits, entitlements, and, in some cases, installing
infrastructure for raw land development and then realizing that
land's value by selling larger parcels to buyers who will take the
land further up the value chain by either selling homes to retail
buyers or lots to developers of commercial property.
QUALITY ECO: Alley Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB ALLEY, PAUL ATKINSON, CHRISTIAN BRATTON and all others
similarly situated v. QUALITY ECO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00355-MHL (E.D. Va., May 19, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that they were regularly required to work in
excess of 40 hours a week. They add that during their employment,
the Defendant did not pay them or other similarly situated
employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours a week, nor were they provided a guaranteed weekly payment at
least equivalent to the minimum wage.
The Plaintiffs have been employed as Installers by QET. Mr. Bratton
is employed from March 7, 2018, through the present. Mr. Alley is
employed from February 20, 2018, through February 25, 2019. Mr.
Atkinson has been employed from January 10, 2019, through the
present.
QET is in the business of providing and installing eco-friendly
ventilation, air filtration, insulation, and power conservation
products to residential and commercial customers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
- and -
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC
530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 788-0808
Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com
R&B GRINDING CO: McWhorter Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven McWhorter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. R&B Grinding Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00735 (E.D. Wis., May 13, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, withheld tips, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other
relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
R&B Grinding owned, operated, and managed a manufacturing facility
in Racine, Wisconsin where McWhorter worked as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt CNC Operator. He claims that he was denied overtime
premiums. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Still Defends 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that the company continues to defend itself against all
claims in two putative class action suits over alleged violations
of federal antitrust law.
In March and April of 2019, three putative class action complaints
were filed against National Association of Realtors ("NAR"),
Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc, RE/MAX
Holdings, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
The first was filed on March 6, 2019, by plaintiff Christopher
Moehrl in the Northern District of Illinois.
The second was filed on April 15, 2019, by plaintiff Sawbill
Strategies, Inc., also in the Northern District of Illinois. These
two actions have now been consolidated.
A third action was filed by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and four other
individual plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri.
The complaints (collectively "Moehrl/Sitzer suits") make
substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar
relief.
The plaintiffs allege that a NAR rule requires brokers to make a
blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation when
listing a property, resulting in inflated costs to sellers in
violation of federal antitrust law. They further allege that
certain defendants use their agreements with franchisees to require
adherence to the NAR rule in violation of federal antitrust law.
Amended complaints add allegations regarding buyer steering and
non-disclosure of buyer-broker compensation to the buyer.
Additionally, plaintiffs in the action filed by Sitzer et al allege
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
By agreement, RE/MAX, LLC was substituted for RE/MAX Holdings as
defendant in the actions.
Among other requested relief, plaintiffs seek damages against the
defendants and an injunction enjoining defendants from requiring
sellers to pay the buyer broker.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is one of the world's leading franchisors in
the real estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages
globally under the RE/MAX(R) brand, and mortgage brokerages within
the U.S. under the Motto Mortgage(R) brand. RE/MAX is a global
franchisor of real estate brokerage services with more than 125,000
agents operating in over 110 countries and territories. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.
RED ROBIN: Settlement Reached in Vigueras & Vasquez Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 29, 2020, that
the Company has reached a tentative settlement agreement resolving
all claims and the costs in Manuel Vigueras v. Red Robin
International, Inc. and Genny Vasquez v. Red Robin International,
Inc. suits.
On July 14, 2017, a current hourly employee filed a class action
lawsuit alleging that the Company failed to provide required meal
breaks and rest periods and failed to reimburse business expenses,
among other claims. The case is styled Manuel Vigueras v. Red Robin
International, Inc. and is currently pending before the United
States District Court in Santa Ana, California.
In a related action, on September 21, 2017, a companion case,
styled Genny Vasquez v. Red Robin International, Inc. was filed and
is currently pending in California Superior Court in Santa Ana,
California and involves claims under the California Private
Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA") that partially overlap in the
claims made in the Vigueras matter.
In the first quarter of 2020, the Company reached a tentative
settlement agreement resolving all claims and the cost of class
administration in both cases for an aggregate $8.5 million.
The Company is in the process of finalizing the settlement
agreement, which will then be submitted to the court for approval.
Court approval is required before any settlement agreement between
the parties becomes final.
An additional $4.5 million was accrued to reach the $8.5 million
settlement amount during its first fiscal quarter of 2020.
Greenwood Village, Colorado-based Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.
(NASDAQ: RRGB), develops, operates, and franchises full-service
restaurants with 556 locations in North America. As of December 31,
2017, the Company operated 480 Company-owned restaurants located in
44 states and two Canadian provinces. The Company also had 86
franchised full-service restaurants in 15 states as of December 31,
2017.
REDAL RECYCLING: Rivera Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fabio Rivera, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Regal Recycling Co. Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02355
(E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act and the New York Labor
Law alleging that the Plaintiff is entitled to unpaid overtime
wages, costs and attorney's fees.
The Plaintiff was paid a regular rate of about $31.25 an hour for
about 48 hours each and the Plaintiff and was not paid any wages
for about 9 or more overtime hours (weekly hours over 40) each
week, for each week during his employment with the Defendant,
according to the complaint. The Defendant also failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the putative class members at a rate of at least 1.5
times their regular rate for each and all overtime hours (hours
over 40 in a week) worked in each week during their employment with
the Defendant.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from January 2019 until
April 27, 2020.
The Defendant was engaged in the recycling business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Phone: 718-740-1000
Fax: 718-740-2000
Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com
RUBICON PROJECT: Telaria Merger-Related Suit Dismissed Voluntarily
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rubicon Project, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suits
related to Telaria, Inc.'s merger have been dismissed voluntarily.
On April 1, 2020, the Company completed a stock-for-stock merger
("Merger") with Telaria, Inc., ("Telaria"), a leading provider of
connected television ("CTV") technology, creating an independent
sell-side advertising platform, offering a single partner for
transacting CTV, desktop display, video, audio, and mobile
inventory across all geographies and auction types.
Between February 5 and March 16, 2020, nine lawsuits were filed by
purported stockholders of Telaria in connection with the merger
with The Rubicon Project, Inc. (the "Merger").
Two lawsuits were brought as putative class actions (captioned
Sabatini v. Telaria, Inc., et al. and Carter v. Telaria, Inc., et
al).
Seven lawsuits were brought by the plaintiffs individually
(captioned Stein v. Telaria, Inc., et al; Lin v. Telaria, Inc. et
al; Melool v. Telaria, Inc., et al; Robinson v. Telaria, Inc., et
al; Wu v. Telaria, Inc., et al; Yang v. Telaria, Inc., et al; and
Corthell v Telaria, Inc. et al (collectively, the "Complaints")).
The Complaints name as defendants Telaria and each member of its
Board of Directors. The Sabatini complaint additionally names the
Rubicon Project, Inc. (the "Rubicon Project") and Madison Merger
Corp. ("Merger Sub") as defendants.
The Complaints allege violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") 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 Act against 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 Telaria's Definitive Proxy Statement
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.
On March 23, 2020, Telaria and Rubicon Project filed supplemental
disclosures to its Definitive Proxy Statement, mooting the
Complaints.
On March 24, 2020, plaintiffs in the Lin, Carter, Robinson, and
Stein actions voluntarily dismissed their respective cases.
On March 30, 2020, Telaria held a special meeting of its
stockholders, at which Telaria's stockholders approved the Merger.
On April 20, 2020, plaintiff in the Sabatini action voluntarily
dismissed his case.
The Rubicon said, "We believe the claims asserted in the remaining
Complaints are without merit."
The Rubicon Project, Inc. provides advertising automation solution,
a critical functionality to buyers and sellers of digital
advertising. The Company's advertising platform consists of
applications that enable sellers, including website providers to
sell their advertising inventory to buyers, like ad networks and
advertising agencies.
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Class Suit Over Tableau Merger Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that a trial court has not
yet set a trial date in the class action suit related to the
Company's Merger deal with Tableau Software, Inc.
On August 1, 2019, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated June 9, 2019, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
capital stock of Tableau Software, Inc. (Tableau), which provides
a self-service analytics platform that enables users to easily
access, prepare, analyze, and present findings in their data.
In July and August 2017, two substantially similar securities class
action complaints were filed against Tableau and two of its now
former executive officers.
The first complaint was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern
District of New York (the "Scheufele Action"). The second complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington and was voluntarily dismissed on October 17, 2017.
In December 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Scheufele Action filed
an amended complaint, which alleged that between February 5, 2015
and February 4, 2016, Tableau and certain of its executive officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with statements regarding Tableau's business and
operations by allegedly failing to disclose, among other things,
that product launches and software upgrades by competitors were
negatively impacting Tableau's competitive position and
profitability.
The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.
In February 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint (the "SAC"), which contains substantially similar
allegations as the amended complaint, and added as defendants two
more of Tableau's now former executive officers and directors.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC in March 2018, which
was denied in February 2019. Defendants filed an answer to the SAC
in March 2019, and subsequently amended their answer in April 2019.
On January 15, 2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for
class certification. The parties have completed fact discovery and
are engaged in expert discovery.
The court has not yet set a trial date.
Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions
with a focus on customer relationship management. The company
offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress,
forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and
relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts,
and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Salinger Class Suit Closed
------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has
endorsed the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal made in the putative
class action suit initiated by Andrew Salinger and closed the
case.
On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff Andrew Salinger filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company and two of its current
officers, Douglas S. Ingram and Sandesh Mahatme, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleged that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, in connection with the Company's disclosures related to
golodirsen.
The proposed class consisted of all persons or entities who
acquired Company securities between September 6, 2017 and August
19, 2019.
On December 17, 2019, the district court appointed Bernard Portnoy
as lead plaintiff, and set a briefing schedule requiring the
amended complaint to be filed on February 18, 2020 and requiring
Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint
on April 17, 2020.
On February 13, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal of his claims against all Defendants.
On April 22, 2020, the Court endorsed the Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal and closed the case.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. is commercial-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on helping patients through the discovery and
development of unique RNA-targeted therapeutics, gene therapy and
other genetic medicine approaches for the treatment of rare
neuromuscular diseases. The company is based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
SC JOHNSON: Toth Sues Over False Marketing of Cleaning Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Toth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc. and Method Products, PBC, Case
No. 3:20-cv-03553 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2020), seeks damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing
practices with regards to its home cleaning products under the
Method brand purporting to be non-toxic.
Method falsely and misleadingly markets the Products to consumers
as being non-toxic as that term is generally understood, according
to the complaint. In fact, the Products contain several ingredients
that each, taken alone, constitutes a toxic ingredient that belies
the non-toxic claim. Method charges a premium for these Products.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal, family, or
household use at the Defendant's Products that stated "Non-Toxic."
The Plaintiff would not have purchased or paid more for the
Products had the Plaintiff realized that the Products contained
toxic ingredients, says the complaint.
The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
home cleaning products purporting to be non-toxic, under the Method
brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
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
SCWORX CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on April 29, 2020, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against SCWorx Corp. (NASDAQ:
WORX). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is April 13, 2020 through April 17, 2020.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-scworx-corp/
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all SCWorx Corp.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than Monday, June 29, 2020 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
To discuss this action, obtain further information and participate
in this or any other securities litigation, contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/[GN]
SIMON PROPERTY: Cafe Gelato Sues Over Illegal Electricity Mark-up
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAFE, GELATO & PANINI LLC, d/b/a/ CAFE GELATO PANINI, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. SIMON PROPERTY GROUP,
INC., SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, L.P., M.S. MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.,
and THE TOWN CENTER AT BOCA RATON TRUST, Case No. 0:20-cv-60981-RKA
(S.D. Fla., May 19, 2020), alleges that Simon executed a fraudulent
scheme through a criminal enterprise to overcharge small business
tenants for electricity at all of its shopping malls throughout the
United States.
The Plaintiff contends that in an effort to conceal its wrongful
and illegal conduct, Simon caused M.S. Management to insert into
the lease agreements a clause requiring the tenants at the shopping
malls, ultimately owned and controlled by Simon through its holding
companies, to waive their right to audit the shopping malls'
electric bills in exchange for agreeing that the electricity
charges would not be marked-up. The Plaintiff asserts that whenever
tenants raised issues about their electricity costs, Simon caused
M.S. Management to inform the tenants that they had waived their
audit rights under the lease agreement and instructed M.S.
Management not to provide the tenants with the actual electricity
bills from the utilities, which would have revealed the undisclosed
mark-ups.
Cafe Gelato is an upscale Italian/Argentinian bistro located at The
Town Center at Boca Raton. Cafe Gelato signed a 5-year lease with
the Trust for its location at TCBR on October 24, 2014.
Simon conducts its business through Simon Property Group, L.P.
Simon Partnership owns M.S. Management Associates, Inc. M.S.
Management is responsible for managing Simon's shopping malls
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth Miles, Esq.
David M. Buckner, Esq.
Brett E. von Borke, Esq.
BUCKNER + MILES
3350 Mary Street
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Telephone: 305 964 8003
E-mail: david@bucknermiles.com
seth@bucknermiles.com
vonborke@bucknermiles.com
- and -
Michael A. Hersh, Esq.
Catherine Darlson, Esq.
KELLEY UUSTAL
500 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1103
Telephone: 954-522-6601
E-mail: mah@kulaw.com
ccd@kulaw.com
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Buttermilk, Hobson File Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Tribune reports that the owners of the Buttermilk
restaurants in Naperville and Geneva and a movie theater in
Woodridge have filed a federal class action lawsuit charging their
insurance company wrongly denied claims for lost income due to the
coronavirus pandemic.
Filed in the eastern division of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, the suit says the companies
purchased the insurance from Wisconsin-based Society Insurance Inc.
to cover their losses and expenses in situations in which their
businesses are forced to close, Naperville attorney David Fish
said.
"They were shocked to learn that even though they always paid their
premiums on time, (Society Insurance) didn't honor the claims,"
said Fish, who filed the suit on their behalf and other companies
in the same position.
The policies purchased include provisions for the loss of income as
well as extra expenses, civil authority and contamination that
result from an involuntary business interruption, the lawsuit
said.
However, the insurance company rejected the claims for income
losses and other expenses related to the COVID-19 outbreak despite
Society Insurance not conducting "a meaningful coverage
investigation," the suit said.
The Buttermilk restaurants and Hollywood Boulevard Cinema have been
closed since March, when Gov. J.B. Pritzker mandated that all
dine-in restaurants and nonessential businesses shut down to slow
the spread of the coronavirus. Buttermilk has been able to provide
meal pickup and delivery service, which is allowed under the
order.
Buttermilk Naperville opened its location in Freedom Commons, just
south of Interstate 88, in 2018 and its Geneva location in 2015.
The April 20 opening of its third location in Vernon Hills was
postponed as a result of the state orders.
"This business interruption has resulted in catastrophic business
income loss and significant extra expense," the lawsuit said.
Hobson Financial Group of Illinois has operated Hollywood Boulevard
Cinema in Woodridge since 2014, according to the lawsuit. The movie
theater, noted for its film memorabilia and special events, offers
tableside food service during showings.
"Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the closure
orders, Hollywood Boulevard Cinema has been forced to completely
cease its operations - also through no fault of its own - as part
of the state's efforts to address the spread of the COVID-19 global
pandemic," the lawsuit said.
Neither company had any ability to control the state's forced
closure, Fish said.
"People buy insurance in case there is some unexpected event that
happens. The lawsuit says when Buttermilk can't have people in the
restaurant and the movie theater can't have people there to watch
movies, business has been interrupted," Fish said.
"These businesses had to shut down as a result of the governor's
order. ... These are truly family-owned small businesses, and
they're really hurting right now," he said.
The business owners hope they - and others in similar situations
due to Society Insurance's claim denial - can recoup their losses
back and receive the coverage they thought they signed up for, Fish
said.
"We'll look at how much money was lost from being shut down and get
that back," he said. [GN]
SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refunds of Campus Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yousef Baig, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that a Sonoma
State University sophomore is suing the 23-school California State
University system, leading a growing call from students who say
they aren't getting the experience they paid for and want some of
their money back.
Two lawsuits seeking class-action status were filed in federal
courts in Los Angeles and Oakland, accusing the CSU and University
of California systems of "profiting from this pandemic" by
retaining fees for services that were no longer available,
according to the complaint.
Sonoma State student Akayla Miller, 19, of San Diego, the plaintiff
in the CSU case filed on April 27, is one of thousands of people
nationwide calling on their university or college to refund fees
for a spring semester that's been diminished since distance
education became the norm during the coronavirus pandemic.
Petitions circulating on campuses around the country have amassed
tens of thousands of signatures, prompting lawsuits in several
states to try and compel schools to reimburse students for all or
part of their costs.
Sonoma State has so far provided refunds for housing, meal plans
and parking. The university has offered little guidance for
reimbursements beyond that, but advised against students dropping
classes since it could affect their eligibility for financial aid.
Miller, whose lawsuit is not seeking the reimbursement of tuition,
said she was inspired to act after hearing the stories of other
students who were immediately shut down when they asked for
refunds, and voiced their frustrations on social media. Some
remarked the money could be used for rent, groceries or supporting
family members who are struggling to make ends meet, Miller said.
If the lawsuit is allowed to go forward as a class action and is
successful, the CSU network could owe millions of dollars in
partial refunds to at least 480,000 students statewide.
"The ultimate goal in all of this is to get our fees refunded,"
Miller said. "But it also sends a message that they can't treat
students like this. It's not fair to pass their financial hardships
on to students in a time when it can be so tumultuous. It's not
fair for them to treat us like this."
According to the complaint, campus fees for a Cal State university
could range from $847 to $4,201, depending on the school. SSU
increased its campus-based fee by nearly 4% in the fall to $1,069.
SSU officials declined to comment on the lawsuit, directing
inquiries to the Cal State Chancellor's Office.
Mike Uhlenkamp, a CSU spokesman, said in a statement that the
universities "will vigorously defend against this suit."
"The complaint misstates the facts," he said. "Every CSU campus
continued to fulfill its mission of providing instruction and
services to its students."
Mark Pulido, 21, of Santa Rosa, a senior at Sonoma State, said he
started inquiring about a refund not long after the university
closed its doors on March 12.
He felt the 9,000 students were at least entitled to a refund of
$1,069 in fees paid for facilities and services on a campus they
were barred from entering for more than half the semester.
Pulido said he tried to talk to professors, the financial aid
office, the COVID-19 call center, and even student government
representatives, but had no luck.
Some students are afraid to raise the issue, Pulido said, or feel
they're too small to pose tough questions to a university. He
doesn't see it that way.
"It may appear to be out of our hands, but I feel like the more
students call attention to this, the more the school will listen,"
he said.
Since every campus is still providing academic credit during the
shutdown, reimbursing "tuition and other campus mandatory fees are
not warranted," according to interim policies adopted in
mid-March.
Tuition and fees account for over $3 billion in revenue for Cal
State schools, which was almost half of the university system's
$6.4 billion operating budget last year.
SSU president weighing options for fall semester: ‘We want to
make the right decision'
Noel Garcia, a Los Angeles-based attorney with Cowper Law, one of
the three firms on the case, said schools have the ability to pay
back the fees, despite the uncertainty prolonged distance learning
poses. She pointed to an anticipated $350 million in federal
stimulus funds, or the lucrative endowments that university
officials are usually restricted from spending. In 2017-18, the
market value for gifts received reached $1.7 billion systemwide.
"They have all this money they're able to tap into to cover various
expenses," Garcia said. "Instead of using that, they're passing the
costs off on these students and are unable to reallocate it."
Sonoma State, which has the second-smallest budget in the Cal State
network, has kept parts of its campus open during the shutdown.
About 160 students are still living on campus and receiving
grab-and-go meals from the dining hall.
The university also entered into a $5 million agreement with Sonoma
County officials to repurpose its recreation center and several
student housing complexes to provide at least 580 beds for a
coronavirus surge, as well as shelter at-risk homeless people
during the pandemic.
Generating revenue while holding student fees is "double dipping,"
said Pulido, the senior student. He's hopeful the university will
reverse course with its refunds and set a new precedent for the
generations of students that follow him, prioritizing their demands
and calls for greater transparency in future crises.
"It's heart-warming and I'm proud that we have fellow colleagues
taking action," he said of the lawsuit. "I feel inspired to keep
coming forward." [GN]
SPARK ENERGY: Mediation in Roland Suit to Begin July 10
-------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a district court judge
has granted a 75-day stay order to allow the parties in Janet
Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC, to work on mediation.
Janet Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC is a purported class
action originally filed on April 19, 2017 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Spark
Energy, LLC charged a variable rate that was higher than permitted
by its terms of service, resulting in breach of contract and
violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiffs alleged claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The case seeks to certify a putative nationwide class of all Spark
variable rate electricity customers from April 19, 2011 to the
present. The relief sought includes unspecified actual damages,
refunds, treble damages and punitive damages for the putative
class, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs of suit.
Spark obtained dismissal with prejudice of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act claim and has sought dismissal of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim and other claims.
Discovery is ongoing in this matter.
In April 2020, the Judge granted a 75 day stay order to allow the
parties to work on mediation.
The Company will participate in mediation to see if there is a
cost-efficient way to settle this matter; however, Spark denies the
allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend
this matter.
"Given the ongoing discovery and current stage of this matter, we
cannot predict the outcome of this case at this time," the Company
said.
* * *
Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman on May 27, 2020, ruled that
counsel and the parties shall participate in mediation beginning on
July 10, 2020. The Court designates Rodney A. Max of Upchurch
Watson White & Max as mediator in this case. All proceedings in
this civil action are stayed for a period of 75 days from the date
of this Order, except that discovery as an aid to mediation may be
conducted as agreed to by the mediator and counsel.
Judge Michael A. Shipp also held on May 27 that in light of the
"parties having consented to this matter being administratively
terminated during the mediation process," the Clerk shall
administratively terminate this matter and Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. Upon conclusion of mediation, the parties may e-file
correspondence seeking to reinstate the matter and Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.
Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Agreement Presented in Veilleux Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in
Veilleux, et al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider Power, LLC,
Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet, have presented a
settlement agreement for preliminary approval to the court.
Katherine Veilleux, et al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet is a
purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the
United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity
Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark Holdco in mid-2016,
enrolled customers and conducted advertising, and promotions not in
compliance with law.
Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class,
injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees.
Spark said, "The parties have presented a settlement agreement for
preliminary approval to the court, which we expect the court to
review in second quarter of 2020."
Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Suits Over Accounting Review Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2020, that the company
continues to defend three separate private securities class action
lawsuits related to accounting review.
On February 10, 2020, February 24, 2020, and March 24, 2020, three
separate private securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, its Chief Executive Officer, Tom Gentile III,
former chief financial officer, Jose Garcia, and former controller
(principal accounting officer), John Gilson.
Allegations in each lawsuit include (i) violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by all
defendants, and (ii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the individual defendants.
The facts underlying the complaints relate to the accounting
process compliance independent review (the "Accounting Review")
discussed in the Company's January 30, 2020 press release and
described under Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations - Accounting Review of the 2019
Form 10-K, and, with respect to the action filed on March 24, 2020,
certain disclosures relating to B737 MAX grounding and Spirit's
production rate after the grounding.
Prior to the issuance of Company's January 30, 2020 press release,
the Company voluntarily reported to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) the determination that, with respect to the third
quarter of 2019, the Company did not comply with its established
accounting processes related to potential third quarter contingent
liabilities received after the quarter-end.
The Company has communicated to the SEC that the Accounting Review
is substantially complete.
On March 24, 2020, the Staff of the SEC Enforcement Division
informed the Company that it had determined to close its inquiry
without recommending any enforcement action against Spirit.
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies commercial aero structures
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fuselage Systems,
Propulsion Systems, and Wing Systems. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.
SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Loftus Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Loftus et al. v. Sunrun Inc.
On April 8, 2019, a putative class action captioned Loftus et al.
v. Sunrun Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01608, was filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.
The complaint generally alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and
putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated.
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2019, adding
defendant MediaMix 365, LLC, also asserting individual and putative
class claims under the TCPA, along with claims under the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.
In the amended version of their Complaint, plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and costs on behalf of themselves and the absent purported
classes.
On January 23, 2020, the Court held a status conference and set
discovery deadlines.
Sunrun said, "Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the
lawsuit relate to activities allegedly engaged in by third-party
vendors, for which the Company denies any responsibility. The
vendors are contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for
losses related to the conduct alleged. The Company believes that
the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
TIKTOK INC: Accused of Capturing and Retaining Biometrics Illegally
-------------------------------------------------------------------
L.B., a minor, by and through his or her legal guardian, Molly
Janik, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tiktok, Inc., and Bytedance, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02889, (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2020), seeks
an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity
related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics,
statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.
Defendants own and operate the popular video-sharing social media
application "TikTok," an app that allows users to make and share
short videos. Tik-Tok failed to warn users that the app captures,
collects and stores their biometric data and the purpose or length
of time that they retain such data. It also failed to seek consent
to capture and retain their biometric data, says the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Email: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Finkelstein Files Class Suit Over Faulty Fuel Pumps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, a nationally recognized California based
class action law firm, announces that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor
Sales, USA, Inc., and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing,
Inc. ("Toyota Defendants") on behalf of lessees and purchasers of
certain Toyota/Lexus vehicles equipped with an allegedly
inadequately designed Denso low-pressure fuel pump. The lawsuit
asserts that the Toyota Defendants were aware the fuel pump was
defective and concealed the information from the public, continuing
to tout the safety and reliability and inducing consumers
nationwide to purchase or lease affected Lexus/Toyota vehicles.
We believe the defect in the fuel-pump manifests when the impeller
absorbs fuel and deforms, causing the pump to misfeed fuel to the
engine and resulting in unintended acceleration/deceleration and
stalling at high-speeds. The defect raises a substantial safety
issue as sudden power fluctuation increases the likelihood of
accidents. To date, the Toyota Defendants have issued a recall but
are unable to deploy a repair for the putative defect.
The following list of Lexus/Toyota vehicles are involved:
LEXUS ES350 2018-2019
LEXUS GS350 2013-2015, 2018-2019
LEXUS GS300 2018-2019
LEXUS GX460 2014-2015
LEXUS IS 300 2018-2019
LEXUS IS200T 2017
LEXUS LC500 2018-2019
LEXUS LC500H 2018-2019
LEXUS LS460 2013-2015
LEXUS LS500 2018-2019
LEXUS LS500 H 2018-2019
LEXUS LX570 2014-2015
LEXUS NX200T 2015
LEXUS RC 200T 2017
LEXUS RC 300 2018-2019
LEXUS RC 350 2015, 2018-2019
LEXUS RX350 2017-2019
TOYOTA 4RUNNER 2014-2015
TOYOTA AVALON 2018-2019
TOYOTA CAMRY 2018-2019
TOYOTA COROLLA 2018-2019
TOYOTA FJ CRUISER 2014
TOYOTA HIGHLANDER 2018-2019
TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 2014-2015
TOYOTA SEQUOIA 2018-2019
TOYOTA SIENNA 2017-2019
TOYOTA TACOMA 2018-2019
TOYOTA TUNDRA 2018-2019
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP has successfully litigated class actions
for over 30 years while representing corporate, union, and
individual clients. If you lease and/or own a vehicle identified
above, you may be entitled to relief, including monetary damages.
To discuss your rights or to determine if your vehicle is included,
contact:
John J. Nelson
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
Tel: 619-238-1333
E-mail: jjn@classactionlaw.com [GN]
TRIFECTA VENTURES: Faces Mount Suit Over Unwelcome Telemarketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Mount, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRIFECTA VENTURES, LLC, a California corporation, Case
No. 8:20-cv-01219 (M.D. Fla., May 27, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant to secure redress for its violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue,
the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights, according to the complaint. To
promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of San Diego
County, California.
The Defendant manufactures and sells various CBD products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
TURNING POINT: Nulph Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NJWHL
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA NULPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TURNING POINT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; TURNING POINT OF
NEW JERSEY, LLC; TURNING POINT OF BRICK, LLC; TURNING POINT OF
HOBOKEN, LLC; TURNING POINT OF HOLMDEL, LLC; TURNING POINT OF
LITTLE SILVER, LLC; TURNING POINT OF LONG BRANCH, LLC; TURNING
POINT OF MANALAPAN, LLC; TURNING POINT OF WESTFIELD, LLC; TURNING
POINT OF CHERRY HILL, LLC; TURNING POINT OF MARLTON, LLC; TURNING
POINT OF MOORESTOWN, LLC; TURNING POINT OF PRINCETON, LLC; TURNING
POINT OF SEA GIRT, LLC; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No.
1:20-cv-06089-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., May 19, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants systematically deprived the Plaintiff and other tipped
employees of minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
Due to the Defendants' unlawful failure to properly inform Tipped
Employees of its intention to utilize a "tip credit," as well as
its other violations of the tip credit provisions, the Defendants
have improperly applied a "tip credit" against the wages paid to
the Plaintiff and current and former Tipped Employees, according to
the complaint. The result of the Defendants' conduct is that Tipped
Employees were paid less than the mandated minimum wage.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a "server" at their
Marlton restaurant.
Turning Point is a restaurant chain that, according to the
Company's Web site, operates 12 restaurants in New Jersey
(including locations in Brick, Cherry Hill, Hoboken, Holmdel,
Little Silver, Long Branch, Manalapan, Marlton, Moorestown,
Princeton, Sea Grit, Westfield).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Ciolko, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: 412-322-9243
Facsimile: 412-231-0246
E-mail: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
Robert J. Gray, Esq.
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
Malvern, PA 19355
Telephone: 610-822-3700
Facsimile: 610-822-3800
E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
rgray@cwglaw.com
UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Coronavirus-Related Suit at Tacoma Jail
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for Associated Press, reports that officials
on May 8 confirmed the first positive COVID-19 test at the
Northwest detention center in Tacoma, in a detainee who had
previously tested positive at another detention center and was
being medically screened on arrival at the immigration jail. The
development came just as immigrant rights advocates were going to
court again in an attempt to free medically vulnerable detainees
before any outbreak there.
In a lawsuit filed on May 8 in U.S. District Court, the Northwest
Immigrant Rights Project and the American Civil Liberties Union
argued that it has become increasingly clear that there is no way
to adequately protect people in custody from the coronavirus.
In a filing in a separate case on May 8, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement said a detainee tested positive during a
medical intake screening and will remain medically segregated for
two weeks. The agency said that according to the Pierce County
health department, the detainee has recovered and is no longer
infectious, but still had enough virus cells present to test
positive for the disease.
The detainee had been at the Northwest detention center before
being transferred to an immigration jail in Florence, Arizona,
ahead of a deportation flight. While there he developed symptoms,
tested positive on April 11, and was treated in isolation. Since
his deportation flight was canceled, he was flown back up to Tacoma
along with three other detainees, wrote Dr. Sheri Malakhova,
clinical director for ICE Health Services Corps at the Northwest
detention center.
When they arrived in Tacoma on May 5, none of the four had
symptoms, but were nevertheless tested. The results came back on
May 8, with three negative and the one who had been ill still
positive, but deemed recovered, Malakhova said.
More than 750 immigration detainees at more than 40 detention
facilities around the country have tested positive for the disease,
a number that activists say may be an undercount given a paucity of
testing at some facilities. On May 6, ICE confirmed the first COVID
death of a detainee, at Otay Mesa detention Center in California.
"I'm scared. It's going to happen in here," Perla Martinez Acosta,
37, a detainee at the Tacoma detention center with a history of
asthma, tuberculosis and other medical conditions, said on May 7 in
a phone interview. "I don't want to die in here in this facility,
away from my family."
The lawsuit on May 8 was brought on behalf of four named detainees
against ICE and the GEO Group, which runs the jail. It seeks
class-action status that could bring about the release of roughly
100 people whom ICE officials have already identified as being at a
higher risk of illness or death from the disease, said Northwest
Immigrant Rights Project Legal Director Matt Adams.
Courts around the country have ordered medically vulnerable people
released from ICE custody, but efforts to spring detainees from the
privately run, for-profit immigration jail in Tacoma have met with
limited success. The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed one
case on behalf of nine detainees; while U.S. District Judge James
Robart declined to order their release, saying there was no
evidence of an outbreak at the detention center, ICE released four
of the nine on its own.
In a separate federal lawsuit, Judge Ricardo Martinez ordered the
release of a detainee named Rafael Pimentel-Estrada, saying that as
a civil detainee -- not a criminal offender -- he had a right to
kept in conditions of "reasonable safety."
ICE has taken steps to reduce the risk of an outbreak, including
stopping visitation and observing newly arrived detainees for two
weeks before introducing them to the general population.
But Martinez noted that the detainees are largely responsible for
doing their own sanitation work, with no evidence of professional
cleaning; that shared bathrooms, sinks and other areas make social
distancing impossible; and -- "most concerningly" -- that guards at
the facility are not required to wear personal protection equipment
that could help protect the detainees and themselves.
Martinez Acosta said she recently sought a test after developing
some symptoms, but the medical staff refused to give her one
because her fever wasn't high enough.
The agency declined to comment on the lawsuit, but said it has
evaluated detainees for medical risk and released more than 900
nationwide, with additional releases possible. [GN]
UNITED STATES: ICE's Coronavirus Mitigation Lacking, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Gelardi, writing for The Davis Vanguard, reports that a
Honduran asylum seeker, finding it difficult to breathe, had to
wait hours to see a doctor, resulting in a panic attack. A group of
women demanding protective equipment was met with threats of pepper
spray. A man who tested positive for COVID-19 was sent to recover
in an isolation cell where the lights were kept on 24 hours a day,
making sleep impossible. A man with HIV was incarcerated for weeks
in a unit with over 100 others, waiting to catch a virus that could
kill him.
In court documents, news reports, and through their attorneys,
people held in Otay Mesa Detention Center near San Diego describe
scenes of distress and confusion as COVID-19 rips through the
federal facility. They and their advocates say detention center
officials and government agencies are employing reckless, abusive
practices during the worst pandemic in over a century.
Operated by CoreCivic, a private prison contractor, Otay Mesa
currently houses roughly 660 ICE detainees and around 300 from the
U.S. Marshals Service. The facility has emerged as the clear
epicenter of COVID-19 in immigration detention and a hotspot in the
federal system: nearly one in five positive tests among ICE
detainees come from Otay Mesa.
"It's not hyperbolic to say that this is a matter of life or
death," said Monika Langarica, immigrant rights staff attorney with
the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial
Counties. "People's lives, community health, public safety all
depend on [ICE] acting responsibly right now."
On April 22, a Marshals detainee in quarantine at Otay Mesa sent an
email to her lawyer -- who shared the message with The Appeal --
that said only those with high fevers are getting tested. "From
what my [symptoms] are the doctor said I have the virus but since I
dont have a fever higher than 104 they wont test me," wrote the
woman, whose lawyer asked that she not be named because of her
ongoing criminal trial. She said she was being housed with women
with severe coughs "but not a high fever, so medical is doing
nothing for them."
Anecdotes like this have led advocates to believe that the number
of COVID-19 cases in Otay Mesa -- and in federal detention in
general -- is much higher than official numbers indicate.
Comprehensive testing efforts in some state prisons have revealed
an alarming number of asymptomatic cases, prompting concerns that
the virus spreads among incarcerated populations more quickly than
officials realize, while new modeling from the Government
Accountability Project predicts that 72 to nearly 100 percent of
ICE detainees will be infected within 90 days. ICE reported on on
May 5 that 124 of its detainees and 10 of its employees at Otay
Mesa had tested positive, and press reports indicate that at least
66 Marshals detainees at the facility have contracted the virus.
ICE has also reported that a total of 674 of its detainees across
the country have tested positive for the novel coronavirus. But ICE
has tested less than 1,400 of the at least 38,000 people it has
held in its custody since the outbreak, and half of those tested
were positive -- compared to about 16 percent nationwide. ICE did
not respond to The Appeal's questions.
"We are scared and hope something can be done for us," the woman in
Marshals detention wrote.
Otay Mesa -- and its predecessor, CoreCivic's San Diego
Correctional Facility -- has an extensive history of medical
neglect allegations. In 2010, ICE settled a lawsuit filed by the
ACLU that claimed that the correctional facility routinely denied
detainees procedures as important as heart surgeries and cancer
biopsies because it designated them as "non-emergency" treatment.
As part of the settlement, CoreCivic pledged to reform its
healthcare to meet or exceed national correctional standards. But
reports of ignored pleas for medical attention leading to harm --
including miscarriages and death from pneumonia and heart attacks
-- still surface regularly.
In the month since COVID-19 reached Otay Mesa, the facility has
continued to earn its reputation. Lawsuits, press reports, and
anecdotes from those on the inside describe a detention center
seemingly uninterested in protecting its detainees and workers.
The first person confirmed to have COVID-19 inside the facility
went into quarantine April 1 -- though the staff didn't inform
detainees until two days later, prompting the first of several
threats to hunger strike. After that, the virus quickly spread.
Among the earliest confirmed cases was a man seeking asylum from
Honduras. In a court declaration, he describes how, when he began
to feel fatigue, chills, and a fever, a nurse gave him allergy
pills and sent him back to a cell with eight other men, many of
whom were also experiencing typical COVID-19 symptoms. After four
days, he was too weak to stand up for a head count, so he was sent
to a medical unit to get tested and await results. Four days later,
before the results had come back, it became extremely difficult for
him to breathe. His cellmate in the medical unit had to bang on the
door for more than two hours before staff members arrived to take
him to see a doctor, according to the declaration. The doctor sent
him to the emergency room.
Anxiety over cases like the Honduran man's quickly spread
throughout Otay Mesa, and those incarcerated in the facility began
to complain of a lack of protective equipment. When a shipment of
surgical masks arrived at the detention center on April 10, staff
members handed detainees copies of a contract—written only in
English -- absolving CoreCivic of liability "related directly to
[their] wearing of the face mask," according to the San Diego
Union-Tribune. Women in one immigration unit refused to sign the
contracts and threatened a hunger strike, to which they say
officers responded by threatening to pepper spray them. A call from
inside the unit, recorded by immigrant rights group Pueblo Sin
Fronteras, suggests that some officers responded to detainee
objections with force.
"On April 10, there was no use of force at Otay Mesa Detention
Center," asserted Amanda Gilchrist, CoreCivic's director of public
affairs. She assured The Appeal that there is an adequate supply of
face masks, as well as soap and cleaner, and that "no waiver will
be required to receive a mask."
After hearing about the initial shortage of masks -- as well as
some complaints from detainees' relatives that the detention center
frequently ran out of soap -- Lorena Gonzalez, a state assembly
member representing Otay Mesa's district, teamed up with local
organizations to gather about 1,000 masks to donate to the
facility. But when she arrived at the detention center, the staff
wouldn't let her in. Gonzalez told The Appeal that, when she
finally got hold of the warden, Christopher LaRose, he told her
that there were plenty of masks and soap to go around. When she
asked to tour the facility, LaRose said she would have to make that
request with ICE.
"We don't know what [detainees] are being left with," Gonzalez
said. "But we do know that the COVID-19 virus is spreading
throughout the facility, and that they have a record number of
positive cases. So something's not being done right."
Medical professionals and advocates say the best way to prevent the
spread of COVID-19 among incarcerated populations is to release as
many people as possible, because it reduces crowding and makes it
easier for people to isolate. Many ICE detainees are incarcerated
only because they're waiting to get in front of an immigration
judge for an asylum hearing. But ICE and the Marshals have still
resisted releasing medically vulnerable people, so lawyers have
been filing lawsuits to compel them to do so.
The largest litigation efforts have come from the ACLU of San Diego
and Imperial Counties, which has filed two class-action suits --
one against ICE and one against the Marshals. Both suits have asked
a federal court to compel the agencies to release all people over
the age of 45 -- plus those with underlying medical conditions that
make them especially vulnerable to COVID-19 -- from Otay Mesa and
the nearby Imperial Regional Detention Facility.
While detention during a pandemic is dangerous on its face, the
ACLU lawsuits argue that ICE and the Marshals' coronavirus
mitigation plans are severely lacking. "I am unaware of any
epidemiologist or any public health expert who would consider
[ICE's] procedures to be sufficient preventative measures," Joseph
Amon, a clinical professor of community health at Drexel
University, wrote in a court declaration. The Marshals, he wrote,
are even more unprepared: The service "does not appear to have any
plan to establish special protections for high-risk patients."
And ICE seems to be offering little justification for its
reluctance to release detainees, making legal challenges
exceedingly cumbersome.
"Their arguments are ridiculous. It's shocking," said Munmeeth
Soni, director of litigation and advocacy at the Immigrant
Defenders Law Center, who is representing four Otay Mesa detainees
trying to get released. "It seems that this agency is in a state of
denial about what COVID is, what measures need to be taken to
protect from COVID, and that the people that are in their custody
are somehow not in danger from COVID."
The two class-action suits use a template that lawyers around the
country have been following in their attempts to get clients
released: first, a complaint alleging that detention during the
pandemic violates constitutional due process and protections
against cruel and unusual punishment, then, a motion for a
temporary restraining order that would, if successful, secure
detainees' release during the possibly months-long litigation
process.
On April 30, the District Court for the Southern District of
California granted a version of the ACLU's temporary restraining
order motion in the ICE lawsuit, ordering ICE to release a subclass
of detainees who are over 60 or "who have medical conditions that
place them at heightened risk of severe illness or death from
COVID-19." But on May 4, LaRose, the Otay Mesa warden, rebutted;
after claiming that more than 50 ICE detainees fit the subclass's
parameters, he asked the judge to reconsider the order, taking
issue with, among other things, the ACLU's charge that conditions
inside the detention center violate detainees' constitutional
rights. According to the ACLU, ICE has continued to process people
for release, despite LaRose's challenge—though only two had been
released as of May 4.
In addition to the ACLU's class-action suits, The Appeal has
identified nine other lawsuits against Otay Mesa and its government
agency partners -- filed between late March and late April in the
District Court for the Southern District of California -- all of
which employ the same basic legal framework. Despite the ACLU's
relative success, these cases show that, even with a motion for a
temporary restraining order, it can take weeks for a judge to issue
a decision that results in detainees' release, and success is far
from guaranteed. Two of the suits were dismissed because ICE
paroled the plaintiffs on its own. Of the other seven, two were
denied in their entirety, one has had its motion for a temporary
restraining order denied, and the rest are still in early stages of
litigation.
Additionally, two detention officers at Otay Mesa filed lawsuits
against CoreCivic, charging that the company has failed to protect
their health amid the pandemic.
Many lawyers are frustrated that they have to file so many
slow-moving, unpredictable lawsuits and just want the government to
ensure their clients' safety.
"We've tried to get them bonds, secure their release through the
immigration courts, and we're being shut out everywhere," said Soni
of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center. One of her clients, a
33-year-old asylum seeker from Nicaragua, tested positive for
COVID-19, and was sent to an isolation cell, where the lights were
kept on for 24 hours a day, making it impossible for him to sleep
and recover, according to court records. (The Immigrant Defenders
Law Center asked that The Appeal withhold the names of its
plaintiffs given the dangers they face in their home countries and
the high rate of asylum denial among San Diego immigration
judges.)
"ICE has the discretion to release anyone from its custody at any
moment," said Langarica, one of the ACLU of San Diego attorneys on
the class-action case against ICE. Her lead named plaintiff, Adrian
Rodríguez Alcantara, who is at severely heightened risk of
succumbing to COVID-19 because of his HIV-positive status, was
"cohorted" in a unit with over 100 men, and claims that he is
unsure that CoreCivic adequately managed his HIV treatment.
"There's just been a real refusal to do what public health and
medical experts are calling for," Langarica said.
Update: At around 2:15 a.m. on May 6, 57-year-old Carlos Ernesto
Escobar Mejia, an ICE detainee at the Otay Mesa Detention Center,
died of COVID-19, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. He had
been in the hospital for more than a week. On April 15, an
immigration judge denied him bond, but at the time of his death, he
was on a list of medically vulnerable detainees at Otay Mesa under
consideration for release as part of a class-action lawsuit.
Escobar Mejia had lived in the United States since 1980, having
fled civil war in El Salvador, and was the only one of five
siblings not to receive legal permanent residency. He's the first
known person to die of COVID-19 while in ICE custody. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Weiss Sues Over Not Getting Services' Value
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Weiss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Case No. 1:20-cv-22207-KMW (S.D.
Fla., May 27, 2020), is brought for the Plaintiff and others, who
did not receive the full value of the services for which they paid,
did not receive the benefits of in-person instruction, have lost
the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss and
are entitled to recover compensatory damages, and attorney's fees
and costs.
Despite sending students home and closing its campus(es), the
Defendant continues to charge for tuition, fees, and/or room and
board as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap the financial
benefit of millions of dollars from students, according to the
complaint. The Defendant does so despite students' complete
inability to continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and
dormitories, or avail themselves of school programs and events. So
while students enrolled and paid the Defendant for a comprehensive
academic experience, the Defendant instead offers the Plaintiff
something far less: a limited online experience presented by Google
or Zoom, void of face-to-face faculty and peer interaction,
separated from program resources, and barred from facilities vital
to study. The Plaintiff did not bargain for such an experience.
According to the complaint, while some colleges and universities
have promised appropriate and/or proportional refunds, the
Defendant excludes itself from such other institutions treating
students fairly, equitably and as required by the law. And for some
students and families, the Defendant does so based on outdated
financial aid equations and collections without taking into account
disruptions to family income, a particular concern now where
layoffs and furloughs are at record levels. As a result, the
Defendant's actions have financially damaged the Plaintiff and the
Class Members.
The Plaintiff is the parent of a current Miami student and paid his
son's tuition and fees for the Defendant's Spring 2020 academic
term.
University of Miami is an institution of higher learning located in
Coral Gables, Florida, among other locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, PA
2525 Ponce De Leon, Suite 1150
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 442-8666
Email: szg@grossmanroth.com
- and –
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, DC 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (708) 628-4949
Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
whitneys@hbsslaw.com
VBI VACCINES: Israel Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the District Court has
accepted SciVac Ltd.'s motion to suspend reaching a decision on the
approval of the class action pending the determination of liability
under the civil action.
On September 13, 2018, two actions were brought in the District
Court of the central district in Israel naming the Company's
subsidiary SciVac as a defendant.
In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege among other
things, defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac discovered in July
2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in children and infants
in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that
SciVac failed to provide accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to
consumers and that each child suffered side effects from the
vaccine.
The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with
Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April, 2011 and seeking damages in a total
amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in thousands) ($527,209).
The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the Israel Ministry of Health alleging,
among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental,
defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was
marketed in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its
safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was produced and marketed in Israel
without approval of a western regulatory body.
The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as
well as punitive damages.
SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.
The District Court has accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching
a decision on the approval of the class action pending the
determination of liability under the civil action. Preliminary
hearings for the trial of the civil action began on January 15,
2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit entitled, In re: Venator Materials
PLC Securities Litigation, is pending.
On February 8, 2019 the company, certain of its executive officers,
Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection
with the company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary
offering were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil
suit filed in the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas
County (the "Dallas District Court"), by an alleged purchaser of
the company's ordinary shares in connection with its IPO on August
3, 2017 and its secondary offering on November 30, 2017.
The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges
that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the
impact to our operations, and prospects for restoration thereof,
resulting from the fire that occurred at our Pori, Finland
manufacturing facility, among other allegations.
Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations
were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement
System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March
13, 2019, with the third case naming two of the company's directors
as additional defendants.
The cases filed in the Dallas District Court were consolidated into
a single action, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities
Litigation.
On May 8, 2019, the company filed a "special appearance" in the
Dallas District Court action contesting the court's jurisdiction
over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery
County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 the company and certain
defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on certain of these motions,
which were subsequently denied. On January 21, 2020, the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed the Dallas
District Court's order that denied the special appearances of
Venator and certain other defendants, and rendered judgment
dismissing the claims against Venator and certain other defendants
for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals also remanded the case for the Dallas District
Court to enter an order transferring the claims against Huntsman to
the Montgomery County District Court.
On March 19, 2020, plaintiffs from the Dallas District Court case
filed suit in New York State Court (New York County) against
Venator and the other defendants dismissed from the Dallas District
Court case, making substantially the same allegations as were filed
in the Dallas District Court.
An additional case was filed on July 31, 2019, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York by the City of Miami
General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, making
substantially the same allegations, adding claims under sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and naming all of the
company's directors as additional defendants.
A case also was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas by the Cambria County Employees Retirement System
on September 13, 2019, making substantially the same allegations as
those made by the plaintiff in the case pending in the Southern
District of New York.
On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered an order transferring the case brought
by the city of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, where it was consolidated into a single action
with the case brought by the Cambria County Employees' Retirement
Trust and is now known as In re: Venator Materials PLC Securities
Litigation.
On January 17, 2020, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action
filed a consolidated class action complaint. On February 18, 2020,
all defendants joined in a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, which plaintiffs have opposed, and for which oral
argument has been scheduled for May 14, 2020.
The plaintiffs in these cases seek to determine that the
proceedings should be certified as class actions and to obtain
alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable
relief.
Venator said, "We may be required to indemnify our executive
officers and directors, Huntsman, and the banks who acted as
underwriters in our IPO and secondary offerings, for losses
incurred by them in connection with these matters pursuant to our
agreements with such parties. Because of the early stage of this
litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss
or range of loss and we have not accrued for a loss contingency
with regard to these matters."
Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and
Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is
headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom.
VERDE ENERGY: Jurich Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that an order of dismissal
has been in the class action suit entitled, Jurich v. Verde Energy
USA, Inc.
Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a class action originally filed
on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8,
2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State
of Connecticut.
The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged
rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and
alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified actual and punitive damages for the class and
injunctive relief.
As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the
Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are
handling this matter.
The parties have reached a class settlement in this matter, which
received final court approval, and an order of dismissal on
February 24, 2020.
Settlement claims' administration is continuing.
The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage, net of tax
benefit, for any actual exposure in this case at this time.
Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
VOLKSWAGEN: Fuel Economy Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that certain
owners and lessees of Audi, Bentley, Porsche and Volkswagen
vehicles equipped with gasoline engines will receive between
$518.40 and $2,332.80 per vehicle after a federal judge approved a
fuel economy class action settlement.
According to court documents, Volkswagen agreed to pay more than
$96 million for marketing vehicles with overstated fuel economy.
Judge Charles R. Breyer approved the settlement by finding the
terms were fair and adequate to vehicle owners who believed they
were buying gasoline-powered vehicles with specific fuel economy
numbers.
The judge approved a formula based on a vehicle owner driving about
15,000 miles per year, with additional compensation for extra gas
that would be used over a period of 96 months.
The class action lawsuit alleges VW fooled customers and regulators
by manipulating emissions testing machines by installing software
in the transmission control units.
The software allegedly activated during fuel economy testing by
altering how the transmissions shifted, causing the estimated fuel
economy to be overstated by up to 1 mile per gallon.
The transmission software allegedly slowed down the shifting of
gears during testing, a method that required less fuel than a
customer would use in real-world driving.
All customers will receive payments based on a prorated formula for
months they leased or owned the affected vehicles, while original
vehicle owners will receive full compensation based on the
settlement terms. Lease holders will be compensated for the full
duration of their leases as of the settlement date.
Attorneys for vehicle owners will receive nearly $11 million for
fees and more than $2 million for costs.
The settlement adds to the $32 billion Volkswagen has spent after
installing illegal emissions software that caused millions of
diesel vehicles worldwide to emit illegal nitrogen oxide levels.
It was the massive diesel investigations and penalties that caused
the government and lawyers to look at other possible problems with
vehicles powered by gasoline.
The VW fuel economy class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division: In re Volkswagen 'Clean Diesel' Marketing,
Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (Audi CO2
cases). [GN]
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Colorado Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend against a cost of insurance litigation entitled, Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC
District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897), in Colorado.
Cost of insurance litigation for the Company also includes Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC
District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018), a
putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific
types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the
Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only
in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the
decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately
October 2015. Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks
class certification.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend against a cost of insurance litigation entitled, Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance
Company, in Minnesota.
Cost of insurance litigation includes Advance Trust & Life Escrow
Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC District of
Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863) (filed October 5, 2018), a putative
class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the Company's
universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to
rely upon the policyholders' expected future mortality experience
to establish the cost of insurance, and that as projected mortality
experience improved, the policy language required the Company to
decrease the cost of insurance.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of
insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with the
policyholders, and seeks class certification.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the cost of insurance
litigation styled, Barnes v. Security Life of Denver (USDC District
of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), is still
ongoing.
Cost of insurance litigation for the Company includes Barnes v.
Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No.
1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), a putative class action in
which the plaintiff alleges that his insurance policy only
permitted the Company to rely upon his expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase his cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors to do so.
Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims against
the Company and also seeks declaratory relief.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Goetz Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the putative class
action styled, Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company, is ongoing.
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 Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Zhou Class Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled,, Zhou v. Voya
Financial, Inc. and Security Life of Denver, is still ongoing.
The suit Zhou v. Voya Financial, Inc. and Security Life of Denver
(USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:19-cv-02781)(filed September 27,
2019), a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleges that
the Company did not properly administer certain universal life
insurance policies.
The plaintiff claims that the Company did not timely credit
interest earned on the payment of her premiums and incorrectly
calculated the amount of interest that the Company credited to her
account. In addition to the class allegations, the lawsuit alleges
breach of contract and conversion and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief.
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 Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
WELBILT INC: Dismissal Order in Schlimm Suit Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------
Welbilt, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiff's appeal
in the order of dismissal made in Schlimm v. Welbilt, Inc., et al.,
is pending.
On December 13, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the Company and certain of its former executive
officers.
The lawsuit was captioned Schlimm v. Welbilt, Inc., et al., and
alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or
omissions in certain of its periodic reports filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") relating to, among other
things, the Company's business operations and the effectiveness of
its internal control over financial reporting.
The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages and an award of
attorney's fees, in addition to other relief.
On October 17, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On February 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting
defendants' motion and dismissed the Schlimm lawsuit without
prejudice.
On March 30, 2020, the Court issued an amended order of dismissal
with prejudice. On April 2, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal regarding the Court's order granting the defendant' motion
to dismiss.
The appeal is pending.
Welbilt, Inc., a foodservice equipment company, designs,
manufactures, supply, and services food and beverage equipment for
commercial foodservice market worldwide. The company was formerly
known as Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc. and changed its name to
Welbilt, Inc. in February 2017. Welbilt, Inc. was founded in 1902
and is headquartered in New Port Richey, Florida.
WELLS FARGO: Miller Labor Suit Moved From California to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TEDDY MILLER, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 4:19-cv-08327 (Filed
Dec. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on May 19, 2020.
The Southern District of New York District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-03870-AJN to the proceeding. The suit demands $5
million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison
J. Nathan.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime compensation, minimum wages
and other wages, litigation expenses, expert witness fees,
attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, liquidated damages, applicable penalties, all other
available statutory remedies, equitable remedies and injunctive
relief under the provisions of the New York Labor Laws and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Wells Fargo as a mortgage loan
officer from September 17, 2018, to August 8, 2019.
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
headquartered in San Francisco, California, with central offices
throughout the United States. The Company is the world's
fourth-largest bank by market capitalization and the fourth largest
bank in the US by total assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 528-4455
Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew More McNaught, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: amcnaught@seyfarth.com
WEST VIRGINIA: Certification of Ballot Commissioners Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAKOTA NELSON; BELINDA
BIAFORE, individually and as Chairperson of the West Virginia
Democratic Party; ELAINE A. HARRIS, individually and as Chairperson
of the Kanawha County Democratic Executive Committee; WEST VIRGINIA
DEMOCRATIC PARTY; and WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE v.
MAC WARNER in his official capacity as West Virginia Secretary of
State; and VERA MCCORMICK, in her official capacity as Clerk of
Kanawha County, West Virginia, Case No. 3:19-cv-00898 (S.D.W.Va.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their motion to
certify a Proposed Defendant Class of West Virginia County Ballot
Commissioners.
This suit challenges the constitutionality of a West Virginia law
mandating that the party whose candidate for president received the
most votes in the last election be listed first on ballots for
partisan offices. Defendant Vera McCormick, Clerk of Kanawha
County, moved to dismiss the lawsuit but the request was denied on
March 17, 2020.
West Virginia is a state located in the Appalachian region of the
Southern United States.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Majestro, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
Post Office Box 3081
405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Charleston, WV 25331
WORK AND INCOME: May Face Suit Over Covid-19 Redundancy Payout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Scanlon, writing for RNZ, reports that Work and Income may
face a costly class action after it appears to have spent decades
wrongly advising some benefit applicants they cannot get support
until their redundancy runs out.
Work and Income admitted it had made an error after it rejected the
benefit claim of Mary, an Auckland hotel worker, due to her
Covid-19 redundancy payout.
Further legal advice suggests it has been unlawful since 1991 to
include redundancy as part of the calculation for a benefit
stand-down.
RNZ has been contacted by many people who believe they are in a
similar situation to Mary. Some cases are from the last few months,
while others date back to the early 1990s. Some say they lost their
savings and homes.
Grant Cameron, a senior partner at GCA Lawyers and a specialist in
class action lawsuits, said "often bureaucratic mistakes are made
and it's a question of how it is dealt with".
"On the information presented to date, there is a high prospect of
a class action being formed provided people are sufficiently
interested."
Victoria University law lecturer Māmari Stephens, an expert in
social security and welfare law, said there was little case law
relating to the issue of redundancy and benefit payments but people
were "vulnerable" in such circumstances.
Stephens said there were two issues: the potentially narrow way in
which the law relating to redundancy was applied. There could also
be a difference between those who took voluntary redundancy and
those considered "superfluous", and the nature of the training Work
and Income staff received and how many of them understood the law.
"It seems to me there is a real risk to the department [of further
legal action]."
Stephens said Work and Income's manual and procedures document
appeared to correctly reflect the law but in practice this could be
"lost in translation".
"There are some case workers who are not trained in the legislation
and they are relying on the manual and procedures. How these are
translated to the public can differ.
"This may be a classic example of the law saying one thing clearly
and practice over time has evolved quite differently."
She said Work and Income did not like class actions because it
involved going back and potentially re-calculating hundreds of
thousands of cases.
The most recent example involved a missing day of payment relating
to stand-down periods. Between 3 June, 1998, and 28 September,
2015, Work and Income waited an extra day after applicants'
stand-down periods ended before making their initial benefit
payments. It is believed to have cost many millions of dollars to
rectify.
Stephens said one of Work and Income's imperatives was to
"safeguard the public purse and minimise cost to the state".
RNZ has asked Work and Income and Social Development Minister
Carmel Sepuloni a number of further questions about how long the
practice has been in place; the number of people affected and
whether back payments may need to be made.
A spokesperson for the minister said Sepuloni had not been aware of
the issue but had asked officials for a briefing today. They had
advised it was an "operational issue".
Work and Income earlier said frontline staff had been reminded
redundancy payments should not form part of calculations made as to
when a person's benefit payments should start.
It was encouraging anyone with concerns about how it had calculated
their benefit start date to get in contact.
Ricardo Menedez-March, coordinator for Auckland Action Against
Poverty, said Work and Income should make back payments to the
"potentially thousands" of people denied a benefit.
"Particularly right now when we see unemployment rising rapidly,
and when the government itself has acknowledged people should get
access to benefits as soon as they become unemployed, I do think
Work and Income has a duty to proactively look back at those
cases."
He said the minister should order an investigation. [GN]
XPERI CORP: Faces Rosenblatt Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
Xperi Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
Rosenblatt v. TiVo Corporation, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00327 (D.
Del.).
On December 18, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization (as amended on January 31, 2020,
the "Merger Agreement") with TiVo Corporation ("TiVo") to combine
in an all-stock merger of equals transaction (the "Mergers"). The
Mergers are expected to close and become effective during the
second quarter of 2020, subject to regulatory approvals, the
approval by the shareholders of each company, and other customary
closing conditions.
On March 3, 2020, a lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of
Xperi in connection with the proposed merger between TiVo and
Xperi.
The lawsuit was brought as a putative class action and is captioned
Jordan Rosenblatt v. TiVo Corporation, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00327
(D. Del. filed Mar. 3, 2020).
The complaint names as defendants Xperi, XRAY-TWOLF HoldCo
Corporation, XRAY Merger Sub Corporation, TWOLF Merger Sub
Corporation, TiVo, and the TiVo Board.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against
the individual defendants and TiVo, and alleges a claim under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants
and Xperi, because the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on
February 18, 2020 purportedly omitted or misrepresented material
information regarding the proposed merger between TiVo and Xperi.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief, rescission or rescissory
damages, and an award of plaintiffs' costs, including attorneys'
fees and expenses.
The complaint also seeks dissemination of a registration statement
that does not contain any untrue or misleading statements of
material fact and a declaration that defendants violated the
Exchange Act.
Xperi believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.
Xperi Corporation is a San Jose, California-based firm that
licenses technology and intellectual property in areas such as
mobile computing, communications, memory and data storage, and
three-dimensional integrated circuit technologies, among others.
ZOOM VIDEO: Ohlweiler Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LISA OHLWEILER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZOOM VIDEO
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-03165 (Filed April 3, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
on May 14, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-03281-SVK to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million in
damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan van Keulen.
The Plaintiff alleges that Zoom sells the private information of
its 200 million users without their knowledge or permission. Zoom
also falsely advertises end-to-end encryption. She adds that While
many companies are prioritizing people over profits to fight
COVID-19, Zoom is prioritizing profits over people. Zoom is
capitalizing off of the global pandemic by selling user information
to Facebook without user consent, the Plaintiff asserts.
Zoom compounds this felony by falsely advertising that its software
is equipped with end-to-end encryption. Zoom pedals its products
knowing that hackers are accessing to user webcams, exposing its
users to extreme invasions of privacy in violation of the Consumer
Privacy Act and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, says the
complaint.
Zoom is an American communications technology company headquartered
in San Jose, California. Zoom provides videotelephony and online
chat services through a cloud-based peer-to-peer software platform
and is used for teleconferencing, telecommuting, distance
education, and social relations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq.
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
MTheriault@Clarksonlawfirm.com
rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Travis LeBlanc, Esq.
Danielle C. Pierre, Esq.
Evan George Slovak, Esq.
Joseph D. Mornin, Esq.
Kathleen Roberta Hartnett, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 693-2178
E-mail: tleblanc@cooley.com
dpierre@cooley.com
eslovak@cooley.com
jmornin@cooley.com
khartnett@cooley.com
[*] Calif. AG Issues Price Gouging Admonitions Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hofmayer, Esq., and Christopher Wheeler, Esq., of Farella
Braun + Martel LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that
pandemic-related price spikes in consumer goods have attracted the
attention of both government enforcers and private plantiffs. In
California, Attorney General Xavier Becerra has issued two
admonitions against price gouging -- one focused on online retail
platforms, and the other emphasizing that liability attaches to all
"sellers" in the supply chain, including manufacturers,
wholesalers, and distributors. Private plaintiffs are also taking
action. A putative class action was recently filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of California consumers alleging price gouging of eggs by
retailers and other sellers further up the supply chain.
This action, as well as AG Becerra's warnings, are grounded in
Penal Code Section 396, California's price gouging law. Enacted in
1994 following the Northridge earthquake, the law responded to
localized reports of price surges in commodities like eggs,
batteries, and plywood in the aftermath of the disaster. The
California Legislature enacted Section 396 against this backdrop,
seeking to dissuade would be price gougers through both criminal
and civil remedies. The history of the statute, its preamble, and
the categories of prohibited price increases (hotels, rentals, home
building), suggest that a global pandemic was not top of mind.
Despite its breadth and severity, there are no judicial decisions
interpreting Section 396 at any level, reported or unreported. The
egg class action, however, is likely a harbinger of more to come,
given the attention the statute is now receiving from both
enforcers and private plaintiffs. This article summarizes the key
provisions of Section 396, considers some important ambiguities in
the law, and shares thoughts on issues that may affect "seller"
liability.
The declaration of a state of emergency by the U.S. president,
California's governor, or local governmental entity triggers
Section 396. The statute prohibits price increases for certain
goods and services when the increase exceeds 10 percent, based on
the price charged immediately prior to the declaration. This 10
percent limit appears to have been chosen arbitrarily, and is
stricter than the limits set by other states, which either have
higher limits or non-quantitative prohibitions (e.g., against
"unconscionable" prices). Section 396 applies to: "consumer food
items or goods" and other specified essential items (subsection
(b)); repair, reconstruction, and emergency clean-up services
(subsection (c)); hotel/motel rates (subsection (d)); and housing
rental prices (subsection (e)).
A violation of Section 396 is a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment up to a year, or a fine up to $10,000, or both. Id.
subsection (h). In his April 3 Executive Order N-44-20, California
Governor Gavin Newsom clarified that, for certain items, each
violation (i.e., each sale) constitutes a separate violation. In
addition, a violation of Section 396 is also per se unlawful under
California's Unfair Competition Law, making the statute a
potentially powerful tool for private plaintiffs. Id. subsection
(i).
The section most applicable to the COVID-19 pandemic regards
consumer goods and other essential items. Subsection (b) targets
price increases greater than 10 percent in connection with the
offer or sale of "consumer food items or goods, goods or services
used for emergency cleanup, emergency supplies, medical supplies,
home heating oil, building materials, housing, transportation,
freight, and storage services, or gasoline or other motor fuels."
The prohibition typically applies for 30 days following the
emergency declaration. However, Governor Newsom's April 3 Executive
Order extended the protections of subsection (b) in both
directions. While the Governor's state of emergency proclamation
was issued on March 4, the Executive Order proclaims February 4 as
the reference date against which subsequent prices are compared.
The Executive Order also extends price controls through September
4, 2020.
Private claims under Section 396 and the Unfair Competition Law are
potentially large. Presumably, plaintiffs will claim as
restitution any price increase in excess of 10 percent that the
defendant cannot prove to be directly attributable to additional
costs imposed by the supplier or additional labor or material
costs. In the egg class action, plaintiffs used this measure for
restitution. For large retailers (and other "sellers" up the
supply chain like wholesalers, distributors,
manufacturers/producers and, potentially, platforms) that charge
uniform prices throughout California, actions under Section 396 and
the Unfair Competition Law may be particularly amenable to class
treatment.
A law that has received scant analysis is about to be parsed with
laser focus, especially with regard to potential ambiguities,
exceptions, and defenses. Online platforms will likely claim that
they do not "sell or offer to sell" goods -- instead, they merely
provide a market platform to facilitate third-party transactions.
This question has received judicial treatment in the product
liability setting, with the majority of courts, including in the
Northern District of California, agreeing with this argument.
Anticipating this argument, plaintiffs may allege claims for
"aiding and abetting" and negligence.
For most retailers, however, there is no ambiguity: they are
"sellers," and the statute imposes strict liability. But sellers
are not defenseless. Subsection (b) immunizes otherwise unlawful
price increases if the seller "can prove" that the increase was
"directly attributable to additional costs imposed [] by the
supplier of the goods, or directly attributable to additional costs
for labor or materials used to provide the services" and "the price
is no more than 10 percent greater than the total of the cost to
the seller plus the markup customarily applied by the seller . . ."
As an affirmative defense, defendants bear the burden of proof.
Therefore, sellers must not only ensure that they themselves are
keeping their markups within their customary range, they must also
be prepared to prove that higher costs caused any price increase of
more than 10 percent.
As to retailers, this statutory defense should close the door to
aiding-and-abetting liability in connection with price gouging by a
seller up the supply chain. As to platforms, however, an aiding
and abetting claim may counter the likely claims of platforms that
they are not "sellers." After all, only entities that sell or
offer to sell can take advantage of the subsection (b) defense.
There are several other uncertainties in the scope and application
of the statute. As noted above, the California AG has taken the
position that all "sellers" of consumer goods, even those who don't
sell directly to consumers, are bound by the statute. But who can
bring Unfair Competition Law claims against sellers up the supply
chain? Retailers are unlikely to do so for business reasons.
Consumers are unlikely to have evidence of the pricing practices of
other sellers up the supply chain (e.g., wholesalers, distributors,
and manufacturers/producers), and complications may arise in
connection with efforts to obtain restitution from sellers with
whom consumers are not in privity. Neither of these concerns
stopped the plaintiffs in the egg case, who appeared to name
multiple sellers in the supply chain while admitting that they did
not know who was price gouging because plaintiffs lacked the
necessary information. While pleading with greater specificity may
be required to survive dismissal, both state and federal courts may
be sympathetic to plaintiffs pleading on information and belief
where the evidence is exclusively in the control of defendants.
Another ambiguity is whether the allowance in the subsection (b)
defense for "ordinary markup" is expressed in absolute or
percentage terms. For instance, as to a good that normally costs
the retailer $10 to produce and is sold for $12, will the
"customary mark-up" be limited to $2 or 20%? If the good now costs
the retailer $20 to produce, should the "customary mark-up" be $2
(for a new retail price of $22) or the 20% ratio (for a new retail
price of $24)? Although "markup" is typically considered in a
business context to be a percentage-based measure of profit, there
is no certainty that a court would see it the same way.
As to all of these ambiguities, there is also a larger question
regarding how strictly the statute should be construed. The normal
rule of lenity for applying criminal statutes is in tension with
subsection (a) of Section 396 directing that "it is the intent of
the Legislature that this section be liberally construed."
Seller liability may turn on a number of practical considerations
as well. Sellers without sufficient documentation of transactions
from February 4, 2020 onward, including both purchases from
suppliers and sales to consumers (or other buyers), may face
difficulties in proving that price increases were caused by higher
costs. Relevant documentation could include cost of goods from the
supplier, other costs, seller markup, and final price to the buyer.
Sellers might consider a conservative interpretation of whether
they calculate markups on an absolute or percentage basis.
Automatic pricing algorithms, or indexed pricing, could be reviewed
for statutory compliance. Within the supply chain, sellers could
proactively communicate with their suppliers about any present or
expected price increases, including explanations and/or
documentation from suppliers regarding any price increases.
Finally, sellers should accept the California Attorney General's
invitation to report suspected price gouging, including in the
seller's own supply chain.
Like the COVID-19 pandemic itself, much about the application of
Penal Code Section 396 remains uncertain. However, one thing is
not: in light of the potentially enormous criminal and civil
exposure created by relatively modest price fluctuations in a
turbulent economic environment, the statute is ripe for testing.
[GN]
[*] COVID-19 Pandemic May Increase Demand for Litigation Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latif Zaman, Esq. -- lzaman@hudco.com -- of Hudson Cook, LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that litigation funding -- a
transaction in which a funder purchases a portion of the future
potential proceeds of a litigation claim from a consumer for an
immediate cash advance -- has proven to be an attractive
alternative to a loan for consumers engaged in a lawsuit, evidenced
by the rapid growth of the litigation funding industry over the
past decade. While the COVID-19 pandemic has created almost
unprecedented economic turmoil, it may also create an increase in
both civil litigation and consumer demand for litigation funding.
State regulation of consumer litigation funding is evolving rapidly
and will play a key role in determining whether the industry can
satisfy consumer demand for the product and continue to grow.
The economic crisis resulting from COVID-19 has elucidated certain
unfortunate realities of American life. Numerous studies over the
past few years have concluded that the majority of Americans
effectively live paycheck to paycheck. According to a 2018 Federal
Reserve report, four in 10 American adults would not be able to
cover an unexpected $400 expense with cash, savings or a credit
card charge that could be quickly paid off. In 2013, over half of
American adults would have had trouble paying such an expense. In
the current economy, even more Americans likely will have
difficulties coping with unexpected expenses. In March, an
economist from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis predicted that
by the second quarter of this year, unemployment in the United
States will rise to levels greater than occurred during the Great
Depression.
It stands to reason there will be an increased demand for
short-term credit as many Americans work to cover personal expenses
while getting back on their feet financially. However, it is not
clear that lenders will be able to supply enough credit to meet
this demand. The classic Catch-22 of lending is that the same
conditions that motivate consumers to seek credit also increase the
risk of default. An individual living paycheck-to-paycheck may not
have a robust credit score and a recently unemployed individual
will have an uncertain prospect of repayment. As a business
decision, lenders will extend credit to applicants with a
questionable ability to repay only if they can obtain returns
commensurate with the risk of default. Furthermore, consumer
lending is heavily regulated in many states and rate caps and other
restrictions on terms arguably limit the viability of offering
credit to many Americas.
Alternative finance products, such as litigation funding, may be an
attractive option for many consumers, including those unable to
obtain traditional financing. A standard litigation funding
transaction is non-recourse; if there is no recovery on the case,
the consumer will not be required to repay the litigation funder.
The underwriting of a litigation funding transaction is based on
the likelihood of success of the consumer's case and not the
financial situation of the applicant. In that sense, the
transaction is more egalitarian than traditional credit.
Unemployment, lack of credit history, or any other factor that
would compromise a consumer's ability to repay a loan would not
preclude a litigation funding company from offering an advance if
it found the underlying claim to have an acceptable likelihood of
success.
Of course, litigation funding is only an option for consumers that
have claims from which they can assign future potential proceeds.
There is a school of thought that litigation is countercyclical and
that the overall volume of disputes and lawsuits will generally
increase in a bad economy. A study conducted in 2010 found that the
number of patent claims in district courts consistently increased
as the health of the economy decreased. While there may not be
enough research to definitively establish this correlation for
other types of lawsuits, many expect the COVID-19 pandemic to
directly trigger a deluge of various kinds of lawsuits.
Workers in a number of different industries have already brought
lawsuits against employers related to unsafe workplaces or a
failure to maintain adequate protections against COVID-19. The New
York State Nurses Association filed lawsuits against the New York
State Department of Health and two hospitals, for failing to
adequately protect the health and safety of nurses treating
COVID-19 patients. Walmart is currently facing a wrongful death
lawsuit on behalf of an employee that died from COVID-19, alleging
that the company failed to take adequate measures to protect its
employees. The American Federation of Government Employees filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of its members against the federal
government seeking hazard pay for workers allegedly exposed to the
coronavirus at the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Veterans
Affairs, and Department of Agriculture.
Many workers fired, laid off or furloughed in the coming months may
bring claims against their former employers. A number of companies
are facing lawsuits for allegedly firing employees in retaliation
for criticizing workplace safety standards and policies. Employee
retention decisions will be heavily scrutinized, and it is likely
that some workers will sue for discriminatory practices as well.
Former employees filed a class action lawsuit against a technology
company for alleged violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act ( the "WARN Act") and its California
counterpart. The lawsuit alleges that the company used COVID-19 as
an excuse for mass layoffs with limited advance notice. The WARN
Act, and similar state statutes, generally require covered
employers to provide employees with a prescribed amount of advance
notice for mass layoffs or plant closings. Under the federal WARN
Act, an employer that fails to provide the required notice to an
employee may owe that employ back pay and benefits for each day of
the violation up to a maximum of 60 days.
Considering the breadth of shut down orders and travel restrictions
caused by COVID-19, it is not surprising that many consumers have
taken part in class action lawsuits seeking refunds for money they
spent in advance for travel, event tickets, and subscription
services such as gym memberships. While many of these claims may
not promise individual recoveries high enough to attract litigation
funding, a number of students have taken part in class action
lawsuits against colleges seeking refunds of substantial amounts of
money spent on tuition and boarding costs.
While the CARES Act, the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency
Preparedness Act, and state laws offer healthcare providers and
facilities certain protections from lawsuits related to COVID-19,
they generally do not provide blanket immunity. Accordingly, we are
also likely to see wrongful death and other lawsuits against
healthcare providers and facilities related to the treatment of
COVID-19.
As discussed above, the COVID-19 pandemic and existing economic
factors may increase demand for litigation funding, setting the
stage for the continued growth of the consumer litigation funding
industry. However, it important to note that thus far, the industry
has flourished without express statutory regulation in most states.
This seems to be changing as more legislatures enact laws governing
consumer litigation funding. Critics of the industry and litigation
funding trade groups generally agree that regulation is necessary.
However there is great debate on the specifics of regulation.
In March, Utah Governor Herbert signed the "Maintenance Funding
Practices Act" (the "Act") into law, making Utah the tenth state to
enact statutes expressly regulating consumer litigation funding.
The Act provides consumer protections similar to those found under
litigation funding statutes in Maine, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,
and Vermont. The Act applies to litigation funding transactions of
$500,000 or less to individuals. The Act requires subject
litigation funding companies to register with the Utah Division of
Consumer Protection within the Commerce Department. Among other
disclosures, a litigation funding company must disclose all fees
associated with funding, that the transaction is non-recourse and
that the individual has a five-day right of rescission. Among other
limitations, a litigation funding company may not make or attempt
to influence a decision relating to the legal action that the
company is funding. Notably, unlike litigation funding laws
recently enacted in West Virginia and Nevada, the Act does not
expressly limit fees the funder may charge in connection with the
transaction.
The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding ("ARC"), a
trade group representing the litigation/legal funding industry
praised the Maintenance Funding Practices Act, stating that the law
"will essentially eliminate…bad actors" in the industry. The Act
promotes this goal by encouraging transparency (through its
extensive disclosure requirements), allowing consumers to get out
of transactions within five days, imposing oversight on litigation
funding companies, and prohibiting litigation funding companies
from influencing the underlying claims. Legislators likely wanted
to eliminate "bad actors" while not overburdening other industry
participants. ARC has criticized laws regulating litigation
funding in Tennessee and Arkansas that limit fees, arguing that
these statutes limit the availability of litigation funding. As
noted earlier, a traditional litigation funding transaction is
non-recourse, meaning that that the funder is not entitled to any
recovery if the consumer claimant does not receive a settlement in
connection with the underlying claim. State litigation funding
laws, such as the Act, also expressly require transactions to be
non-recourse. While this makes litigation funding attractive to
consumers, it also creates inherent risk for a funder. For a
litigation funding transaction to be economically viable, the
funder must contract for potential returns high enough to justify
the risk that the funder will receive no return on its investment.
This may be impossible in states that impose low fee limitations on
litigation funding transactions. In a report released in March,
the New York City Bar Association Litigation Funding Working Group,
comprised of private practitioners, prominent academics, and
litigation funders, recommended against New York state imposing
caps on fees in connection with litigation funding transactions,
noting that "there is insufficient data to demonstrate whether New
Yorkers are adversely impacted by the fact that New York does not
currently have a restriction on the fees that funders can charge."
Amidst great economic uncertainty precipitated by COVID-19,
litigation funding may be a welcome option for many consumers
looking to make ends meet. The consumer litigation funding
industry may prove to be the rare countercyclical financial
services sector. However, the outlook for consumer litigation
funding is heavily dependent on how states decide to regulate the
burgeoning industry. While clear regulation is required for the
long-term viability of the consumer litigation funding industry,
state lawmakers face great pressure to enact legislation that
protects consumers without limiting access to funds. State laws
that impose strict fee limitations on litigation funding
transactions, or other restrictions that aim to overly limit the
returns on litigation funding transactions, could stifle the growth
of the industry and make advances unavailable to many consumers.
[GN]
[*] Kelley Drye Attorneys Discuss Pandemic-Related Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Metzinger, Esq. -- jmetzinger@kelleydrye.com -- James B.
Saylor, Esq. -- jsaylor@kelleydrye.com -- and Lauren Margolies,
Esq. -- lmargolies@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye, disclosed that
companies continue to reel from business disruptions caused by the
spread of coronavirus, and in many cases, have struggled to
navigate the swiftly changing landscape in which they are required
to operate (or not operate). At the end of the first full month of
the crisis, as infections appear to plateau in epicenters like New
York City, class actions seeking to remedy consumers' losses during
the pandemic are spreading rapidly.
As of April 30, 2020, more than 150 class actions have been filed
directly relating to or stemming from the pandemic. Tens of
millions of individuals have filed for unemployment, and the
plaintiffs' bar is eager to "help." No amount of social
distancing, and no impending treatment or vaccine, can insulate
companies from the threat of class litigation.
While the specific factual circumstances underlying these claims
are novel, the types of claims being asserted -- and the
jurisdictions where such actions are being filed -- are not.
Companies should stay on top of the following pandemic-related
class action trends and, wherever possible, get ahead of or try to
prevent the additional strain of a class action during these
already difficult times.
Pandemic-Related Refunds
Millions of people throughout the United States hope to receive
refunds for events and services that have been cancelled or
postponed as a result of coronavirus-related bans on large
gatherings, stay-at-home orders and travel restrictions. The
strength of these cases will ultimately turn upon the specific
cancellation, force majeure and limitation of liability clauses in
the relevant contracts, with courts turning to common law doctrines
of impossibility and impracticability where the contracts do not
address these specific issues.
Rapid and widespread event cancellations have understandably tested
companies' abilities to fulfill their obligations. For many
companies that act as intermediate platforms for transactions --
such as tickets to events and rental of vacation properties --
handling refunds on such a scale is not manageable or even possible
given that money consumers pay is often forwarded to venues,
festival promoters and other clients, who often control potential
rescheduling. These circumstances have led to a series of class
action lawsuits against ticket sellers, educational institutions,
subscription fitness, sport, and health companies, and ski areas
and theme parks who offer season ticket memberships.
Getting there can be difficult too. While air travel has not been
suspended entirely, cancellations and postponements, and general
advisories against "non-essential" travel, have stretched airlines'
cancellation policies. There has been a surge of litigation
against nearly every major airline concerning refund policies
during the pandemic.
Companies not only must navigate how to deal with existing
liability, but how to reopen their business and charge their
customers who return balancing compliance with written policies,
supporting their customers and maintaining a good public image, and
remaining financially solvent. Examination of potential ways to
maintain cash-flow, through government incentives, customer credits
against future transactions, and other means, is an important first
step.
Negligence in Addressing the Threat of Coronavirus
Class actions have also been filed alleging negligence and inaction
to respond to and prevent harm arising from the coronavirus
pandemic. Thus far, these actions have largely been focused on
cruise lines, alleging that the ships maintained business as usual
despite increasing knowledge of the danger posed to passengers and
crew, but it is easy to imagine additional lawsuits against
companies that continued operations as the coronavirus spread (or
were forced to continue throughout the shutdown). It is also
expected that similar allegations will arise as the economy reopens
and people resume their normal activities. Companies must design
and implement a careful plan to minimize risk when they resume
operations—by not opening too soon, providing adequate protective
equipment and training to staff, and effectively warning customers
of ongoing risks despite the business reopening.
False Advertising of Health Benefits
With consumers anxiously seeking products that can help them
protect themselves during this public health crisis, it is
important that companies are mindful of claims that may potentially
overstate the effectiveness of a given product in treating or
preventing the virus. A number of companies have already seen
warning letters from federal agencies or class action lawsuits
concerning the alleged lack of evidence that hand sanitizers can
effectively prevent the spread of disease, including coronavirus.
These lawsuits, asserting claims for consumer warranty and unfair
competition, will likely spread from hand sanitizers to other
products. It is unclear how courts will evaluate the objective
"reasonable consumer" under present circumstances. Thus, companies
should closely examine their existing advertising claims (both
express and implied) to ensure they are not misleading in light of
the "new normal."
Price Gouging
Another area where class actions have been slow to file, but are
expected to increase, is price gouging. The pandemic has caused
sharp spikes in demand for disinfecting products, basic
necessities, and essential food staples and empty shelves - both in
brick and mortar stores as well as online shops - have increased
consumer' willingness to pay a premium for these types of products.
While there is no federal law with strict guidelines for price
gouging, more than half of the states have laws the prohibit
charging excessive prices on certain products after a triggering
event, such as a declaration of a state of emergency. Companies
should closely monitor the prices they charge, both during the
crisis and after it resolves, to ensure that any increases to their
prices comply with applicable law. And while third party sellers
like Amazon may be able to pass liability through to the ultimate
seller in certain circumstances, it may be wise to actively monitor
the pricing activities of their sellers and try to curb price
gouging activity before getting hit with litigation.
Privacy
To alleviate the pains of social distancing, companies, schools,
and families have turned to video conference apps to stay
connected. As usual, with increased popularity comes increased
scrutiny and, unfortunately, increased litigation.
Popular videoconferencing apps Zoom and Houseparty have already
been hit with several class actions challenging their privacy
practices. Not surprisingly, these actions have been filed in
California, where the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") went
into effect earlier this year. While the CCPA only provides for a
private right of action under limited circumstances, these actions
demonstrate consumers' ability—or at least attempt—to use other
provisions of the CCPA as underlying statutory violations to
support other California consumer protection claims, such as
California's Unfair Competition Law.
Technology companies whose platforms have seen a surge in
popularity during the pandemic should closely monitor potential
vulnerabilities and reexamine privacy protections that may no
longer be adequate in this new virtual economy.
Securities Class Actions
Shareholder class actions have also been filed challenging both
affirmative representations and omissions relating to the pandemic.
These include actions against cruise lines that allegedly
downplayed the risk of coronavirus to investors, pharmaceutical
companies that allegedly overstated their ability to develop a
treatment or vaccine, and technology companies that allegedly
withheld privacy concerns that have come to light with increased
use. These early cases illustrate why publicly traded companies
must exercise great care when discussing their products and
business both to the public and to their investors. It remains to
be seen how defenses deflecting blame for decreases in stock prices
to the pandemic (similar to those asserted in the wake of the
mortgage crisis) will play out.
Conclusion
"With court closures and delays throughout the country, the
evolution of class action litigation relating to the coronavirus
may take some time to come into focus. We expect the above
described categories of cases to proliferate, and expand in scope
as different issues arise from the reopening of the economy. We
will continue to monitor these cases and provide regular updates as
to the types of claims being asserted and any decisions that come
out," Kelley Drye says. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $790MM Claim Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had US$790 million reserves for asbestos
claims, net of recoverables of US$351 million, as of March 31,
2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$790 million and US$810 million, net of recoverables of US$351
million and US$362 million, as of March 31, 2020 and December 31,
2019, respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were US$175
million and US$179 million, net of recoverables of US$39 million
and US$40 million, as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019,
respectively.
"The Company establishes reserves for claims and claims expense on
reported and unreported claims of insured losses. The Company's
reserving process takes into account known facts and
interpretations of circumstances and factors including the
Company's experience with similar cases, actual claims paid,
historical trends involving claim payment patterns and pending
levels of unpaid claims, loss management programs, product mix and
contractual terms, changes in law and regulation, judicial
decisions, and economic conditions. In the normal course of
business, the Company may also supplement its claims processes by
utilizing third-party adjusters, appraisers, engineers, inspectors,
and other professionals and information sources to assess and
settle catastrophe and non-catastrophe related claims. The effects
of inflation are implicitly considered in the reserving process."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PNSB5f
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that to date, no judgments have been rendered against the
Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.
AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against
these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims
have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The
seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company
does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to
fulfill its obligations in the future. To date, no judgments have
been rendered against the Company as a result of any
asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good
and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/38Uwv3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,181 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,181 asbestos-related claims
pending at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation ("Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation ("Air & Liquid"), and in some cases the Corporation,
are defendants (among a number of defendants) in cases filed in
various state and federal courts.
"Included as "open claims" are approximately 749 and 666 claims in
2020 and 2019, respectively, classified in various jurisdictions as
"inactive" or transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on
multi-district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL.
"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/OtHUMq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $42.2MM A&E Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. has net loss reserves of
US$42.2 million for asbestos and environmental matters for its
Run-Off lines at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
For the three months ended March 31, 2020, the Company has incurred
losses (net) of US$0.2 million and paid losses (net) of US$1.8
million for asbestos and environmental matters.
The Company states, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
three months ended March 31, 2020 were the result of favorable loss
reserve development on prior accident years in risk management
workers compensation reserves, partially offset by unfavorable
development in other run-off lines. Losses and loss adjustment
expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2019 were the result
of net unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years
in other run-off lines."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/aoPwiL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 50,000 Open Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. had 50,000 open claims related to
asbestos matters at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The number of claims
excludes asbestos matters relating to wholly-owned subsidiary
Hercules LLC.
The Company states, "Ashland has insurance coverage for certain
litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in
connection with its asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place
agreements exist with the insurance companies that provide
substantially all of the coverage that will be accessed.
"For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and
estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent. A substantial portion of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers.
"At March 31, 2020, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$109 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims) compared to US$123 million at September 30, 2019.
During the June 2019 quarter, the annual update of the model used
for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on
valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed. This
model update resulted in a US$5 million decrease in the receivable
for probable insurance recoveries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/zYbwVE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 128 Pending Talc Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
There were 128 individual cases pending against Avon Products,
Inc., as of March 31, 2020, related to allegations that certain
talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.
Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos. Many of these actions involve a number
of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos. As of March 31, 2020, there were 128 individual cases
pending against the Company. During the three months ended March
31, 2020, 18 new cases were filed and twenty cases were dismissed,
settled or otherwise resolved. The value of our settlements in
this area thus far has not been material, either individually or in
the aggregate. Additional similar cases arising out of the use of
the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated.
"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims
and will continue to do so. To date, the Company has not proceeded
to trial in any case filed against it and there have been no
findings of liability enforceable against the Company. However,
nationwide trial results in similar cases filed against other
manufacturers of cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright
dismissals to very large jury awards of both compensatory and
punitive damages. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot predict the outcome of all individual cases pending
against the Company, and we are only able to make a reasonable
estimate for a small number of individual cases that have advanced
to the later stages of legal proceedings. For the remaining cases,
we provide an estimate of exposure on an aggregated and ongoing
basis, which takes into account the historical outcomes of all
cases we have resolved to date. Any accruals currently recorded on
the Company's balance sheet with respect to these cases are not
material. Other than these accruals, we are at this time unable to
estimate our reasonably possible or probable losses. However, any
adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate,
could be material. Future costs to litigate these cases, which we
expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though
some costs will be covered by insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3GurLY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health US Seeks to Dismiss Talcum Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that Bausch Health US has filed a
motion to dismiss the consumer protection action filed by the New
Mexico Attorney General.
The Company states, "The Company and Bausch Health US were named in
an action brought by State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector H.
Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, in the County of Santa Fe
New Mexico First Judicial District Court (New Mexico ex rel.
Balderas v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Civil Action No.
D-101-CV-2020-00013, filed on January 2, 2020), alleging consumer
protection claims against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc., the Company and Bausch Health US related
to Shower to Shower(R) and its alleged causal link to mesothelioma
and other cancers. The State of New Mexico brings claims against
all defendants under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, the New
Mexico Medicaid Fraud Act, the New Mexico Fraud Against Taxpayers
Act, and other common law and equitable causes of action, alleging
defendants engaged in wrongful marketing, sale and promotion of
talcum powder products. The lawsuit seeks to recover the cost of
the talcum powder products as well as the cost of treating
asbestos-related cancers allegedly caused by those products. The
Company disputes the claims asserted in this lawsuit and intends to
vigorously defend the matter. On April 17, 2020, Bausch Health US
filed a motion to dismiss."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ZMTw4U
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 187 Cases Pending at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. continues to defend itself against a total
of 187 asbestos-related cases pending as of March 31, 2020,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, began to be named in
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of
industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump
and fluid handling industries. In management's opinion, the
complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative,
alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants,
sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to
the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases
typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The
Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases, where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through March 31, 2020 for
cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$3.1 million, of
which, together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, US$2.9 million has been paid by the Company's insurers.
The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately US$35,000.
"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 187 cases pending
against the Company as of March 31, 2020 (with Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases),
as compared with 209 cases that were pending as of December 31,
2019. During the three-months ended March 31, 2020, 21 new cases
were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from
41 cases and settled two cases. Most of the pending cases have not
advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of
cases are on schedules leading to or scheduled for trial. The
Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the
cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable
future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of
cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control
over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor
as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the
pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/BTYv9O
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million
for asbestos suits at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
CECONY also deferred US$7 million as regulatory assets related to
asbestos suits at March 31, 2020.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7mOae2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrue $34MM for DuPont Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company had an accrual of US$34 million related to
asbestos matters at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "In the Separation, DuPont assigned its
asbestos docket to Chemours. At March 31, 2020 and December 31,
2019, there were approximately 1,100 lawsuits pending against
DuPont alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. These
cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous
jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A
small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the
actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the
1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar
allegations by DuPont employees or household members of contractors
or DuPont employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal
injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/LRccF7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $68.1MM Accrued Liability at April 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos-related liability of
US$68,102,000 as of April 3, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 3, 2020.
The Company also disclosed long-term asbestos liability of
US$281,147,000 at April 3, 2020.
The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and
reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability costs that the
Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, and unpaid legal costs
related to defending themselves against asbestos-related liability
claims and legal action against the Company's insurers, which is
included in Accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.
The Company states, "Management's analyses are based on currently
known facts and assumptions. Projecting future events, such as new
claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each
claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies,
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of
various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance
available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in
asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and
insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or
recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flow."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rf2Pwm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. had accrued liability of US$8 million for
asbestos suits at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Company also
deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets for related to asbestos
suits at March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of
dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.
"At March 31, 2020, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years as shown in the following table. These estimates were based
upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk
factor assessment. Courts have begun, and unless otherwise
determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for
determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that
applied historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe
that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in
excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are
unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss.
"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer
as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs
incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7mOae2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $98MM Non-PCC Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated's reserve for asbestos claims that are
unrelated to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC") was US$98
million at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Corning is a defendant in certain cases
alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC
asbestos claims") which had been stayed pending the confirmation of
the Plan. The stay was lifted on August 25, 2016. At March 31,
2020 and December 31, 2019, the amount of the reserve for these
non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be US$98 million. The
reserve balance as of March 31, 2020 represents the undiscounted
projection of claims and related legal fees for the estimated life
of the litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/x09VuE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $1.06BB Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited recorded Defendant Asbestos Liabilities of
US$1,068,620,000 as of March 31, 2020, compared to US$1,100,593,000
at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "We acquired DCo LLC ("DCo") on December 30,
2016, and Morse TEC on October 30, 2019. DCo and Morse TEC hold
liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims and
environmental claims arising from their legacy manufacturing
operations. These companies continue to process asbestos personal
injury claims in the normal course of business. Defendant asbestos
liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets include amounts for
loss payments and defense costs for pending and future
asbestos-related claims, determined using standard actuarial
techniques for asbestos exposures. Defendant environmental
liabilities include estimated clean-up costs associated with the
acquired companies' former operations based on engineering
reports.
"Insurance balances recoverable on our consolidated balance sheets
include estimated insurance recoveries relating to these
liabilities. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the
capacity of the insurance agreements to indemnify our subsidiaries
for the anticipated defense and loss payments for pending claims
and projected future claims. The recognition of these recoveries
is based on an assessment of the right to recover under the
respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers.
The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance
coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if the
accrued and projected loss and defense costs were paid in full."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4fESmI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FCX Unit Still Defends Talc Suits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that its indirect wholly owned
subsidiary remains a target in cases related to asbestos
contamination matters.
The Company states, "There has been a significant increase in the
number of cases alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in
talc-based personal care products and in cases alleging exposure to
talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with
asbestos. The primary targets have been the producers of those
products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc
miners. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus
Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets.
Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining from 1964 until 1992 when
it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party in two
related transactions. Those transactions involved (i) a transfer
by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc business to a newly
formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and post-sale talc
liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and (ii) a sale of
the stock of that subsidiary to the third party. In 2011, the
third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America (Imerys),
an affiliate of Imerys S.A."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YLMNaZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PI Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that it is a defendant in a "substantial number of
lawsuits" that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past.
The Company states, "While the overall number of asbestos-related
claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no
assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost
per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials
incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe
that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during
the use of this equipment.
"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of
existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities, in whole or in part. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other
companies for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that
the amounts of recovery are probable. While unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a
material adverse impact on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows, we currently believe the
likelihood is remote.
"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although we expect that
future claims would also be subject to then-existing indemnities
and insurance coverage."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AUTQtN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had 13,000 Open Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that wholly-owned subsidiary Hercules
LLC continues to face 13,000 open claims related to asbestos
matters.
The Company states, "For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations,
certain reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place
agreements with insurance carriers exist. Ashland has estimated
the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its
asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and
estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent. The estimated receivable consists
exclusively of solvent domestic insurers.
"As of March 31, 2020, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claims costs from insurers with respect to
Hercules amounted to US$49 million. During the June 2019 quarter,
the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers was completed. This model update resulted in a
decrease of US$5 million in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/zYbwVE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) said in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the costs to resolve
asbestos-related cases during the three months ended March 31, 2020
and 2019, were immaterial individually and in the aggregate.
The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries,
including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis,
cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related
conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive
officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial
or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its
liability and that of its former executive officers. The costs to
resolve cases during the three months ended March 31, 2020 and
2019, were immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The
Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to
uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous
variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables
include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms
made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or
federal tort reform legislation. Although the Company believes the
ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised
claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might
come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the
ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/qaLqiK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Still Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xylem Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) remains obligated to
indemnify the Company from liabilities associated with asbestos
matters.
The Company states, "From time to time, claims may be asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure. We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and would defend ourselves
vigorously. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement among ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis and Xylem, ITT Corporation (now
ITT LLC) has an obligation to indemnify, defend and hold Xylem
harmless for asbestos product liability matters, including
settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs associated with all
pending and future claims that may arise from past sales of ITT's
legacy products. We believe ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) remains
a substantial entity with sufficient financial resources to honor
its obligations to us.
"As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify,
defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to
such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the
Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement
or related spin agreements. The former parent's indemnification
obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica
liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence of
asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold prior
to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to limited
exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in the
structure or material of any building or facility, subject to
exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem
buildings or facilities. The indemnification associated with
pending and future asbestos claims does not expire. Xylem has not
recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to be
indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the
Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other
circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us
under such indemnifications.
"On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis. As the parent of
Exelis, Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis' indemnification
obligations under the Distribution Agreement."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/RObkDn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Luna v. Johnson & Johnson Nixed without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the court has dismissed the case
styled Luna, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., case
2:18-cv-04830-GW-KS, without prejudice.
The Company states, "On February 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a
pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General
notifying the Attorney General's office of their intent to file
suit after 60 days against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, alleging they committed violations of the California
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition
65) by manufacturing and distributing Shower to Shower(R) that they
allege contained talc contaminated with asbestos, a listed
carcinogen. That notice letter was served on the Company on
February 22, 2019. By statute, a private lawsuit may not be filed
until at least 60 days have passed following service of this
pre-suit notice letter.
"In April 2019, rather than filing a lawsuit against Bausch Health
US, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint in a
pending Proposition 65 lawsuit (Luna, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson,
et al., case 2:18-cv-04830-GW-KS) against Johnson & Johnson in
federal court in California to add Bausch Health US as a defendant.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
without prejudice. The court dismissed the case without prejudice
on December 18, 2019."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ZMTw4U
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,800 PI Cases at March 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc has approximately 11,800 asbestos-related cases
pending as of March 27, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020.
The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises
liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos
while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens
of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints
generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily
injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing
asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been
limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore,
in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims
have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the
courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial
court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue
to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles
claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos
claims have been immaterial. As of March 27, 2020, there were
approximately 11,800 asbestos-related cases pending against the
Company.
"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims, claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these
asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given the
information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of
all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account
amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will
not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/hk3yrR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Subsidiary Had 596 New Claims in 1Q 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received approximately 596 new asbestos-related claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020
The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees
during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's
and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes
that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The
outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain
and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in
legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged
injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the
claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.
"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs— it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs
and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos
products that allegedly injured plaintiffs, (ii) plaintiffs did not
rely on any actions of MLIC, (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause
of the plaintiffs' injuries, (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred
after the dangers of asbestos were known, and (v) the applicable
time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of
the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions
dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have
denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will
receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most
cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to
defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure,
including defending claims at trials.
"As reported in the 2019 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
3,187 asbestos-related claims in 2019. For the three months ended
March 31, 2020 and 2019, MLIC received approximately 596 and 843
new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of asbestos
cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability
that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in
any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year
to year.
"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates,
including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims,
the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future
claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a
particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.
"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.
"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet
paid, (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion, and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i)
the number of future claims, (ii) the cost to resolve claims, and
(iii) the cost to defend claims.
"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
March 31, 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Hglvs2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Liable for Cases at March 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax remains liable for all pending and future
asbestos-related proceedings related to a former operation,
according to Office Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 28, 2020.
The Company states, "OfficeMax is named as a defendant in a number
of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation
of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets
being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain
responsibility. Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and
future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out
of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to
the closing of the sale. The Company has made provision for losses
with respect to the pending proceedings. Additionally, as of March
28, 2020, the Company has made provision for environmental
liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous
substances or other contaminants are or may be located. For these
liabilities, our estimated range of reasonably possible losses was
approximately US$10 million to US$20 million. The Company
regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. As
additional information becomes known, these estimates may change,
however, the Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax
retained proceedings are material to the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3qSJQA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 119 Cases at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 119
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 222 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action. In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages;
one count at US$1.0 million. In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.
"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any.
"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/dqpJ8g
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Company Defends Talcum Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 28, 2020, that it has several defenses against product
liability lawsuits related to talcum powder, and intends to
aggressively defend these lawsuits.
Perrigo states, "The Company has been named, together with other
manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in state courts in
Florida, Missouri and Illinois and in the Southern District of
Mississippi alleging that the use of body powder products
containing talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to
the presence of asbestos. The Company has been named in 27
individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages and
has accepted a tender for a portion of the defense costs and
liability from a retailer for one additional matter. The Company
has not manufactured or sold talcum powder products since 1999.
The Company has several defenses and intends to aggressively defend
these lawsuits."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/R7iOc9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Faces Various Lawsuits at March 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020.
The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and
certain of its previously owned subsidiaries.
"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2tbdcr
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 6,000 Lawsuits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 6,000 asbestos-related lawsuits
representing approximately 7,000 claims against Rexnord
Corporation's subsidiary as of March 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "As of March 31, 2020, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos
related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured
by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.
These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy
funded by insurers.
"As of March 31, 2020, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be approximately
US$50.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to
pay approximately US$38.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The US$50.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other
liabilities within the consolidated balance sheets.
"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2020, is in excess of
the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all
current claims are covered by insurance.
"As of March 31, 2020, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of US$50.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the consolidated balance sheets."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/FDpg7x
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries remain named
defendants, along with numerous industrial companies, in
asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "No significant resources have been required by
Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid
defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them
vigorously. Given the state of these claims, it is not possible to
determine the potential liability, if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Abqwco
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Defends Suits at March 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend itself against
lawsuits related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 28, 2020.
Scotts Miracle-Gro states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits
claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products,
apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in
certain of its products. In many of these cases, the complaints
are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or
its products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases
generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company
believes that the claims against it are without merit and is
vigorously defending against them. No accruals have been recorded
in the Company's consolidated financial statements as the
likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company
does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to,
nor the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material
adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance that future
developments related to pending claims or claims filed in the
future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of
significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/yaZNgj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has approximately 30 pending
asbestos claims as of March 31, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust
("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in
1994 through March 31, 2020. In many cases these claims involved
more than 100 defendants. There remained approximately 30 pending
asbestos claims as of March 31, 2020.
"BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for
toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims
has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies
covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through
1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits
from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates
of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are
revised. As of both March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, BNS Sub
has accrued US$1,349 thousand relating to the open and active
claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid
retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance
carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs
for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by
insurance.
"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that
BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Op9vmV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Technologies Defends Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 73 percent of the open and active asbestos-related claims
against Trane Technologies plc at March 31, 2020, are non-malignant
or unspecified disease claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries and former
companies of ours are named as defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the
suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as
defendants. The vast majority of those claims have been filed
against either Trane Technologies Company LLC, formerly known as
Ingersoll-Rand Company, or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally
allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain
historical products sold by Trane Technologies Company LLC or
Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of
our existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or
manufacturer of asbestos.
"The Company engages an outside expert to perform a detailed
analysis and project an estimated range of the Company's total
liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related
claims. In accordance with ASC 450, the Company records the
liability at the low end of the range as it believes that no amount
within the range is a better estimate than any other amount.
Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the liability and
are recorded separately as services are incurred.
"At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, over 73 percent of the
open and active claims against the Company are non-malignant or
unspecified disease claims. In addition, the Company has a number
of claims which have been placed on inactive or deferred dockets
and expected to have little or no settlement value against the
Company."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5fmjlQ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Face Suits at March 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves in lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes with asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020.
The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are
named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages
caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early
1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but
did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance
coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses
arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an
occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not
expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection
with this matter that would be material to its consolidated
financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ez2Ugb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ViacomCBS Had 31,080 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. had approximately 31,080 pending asbestos claims as
of March 31, 2020, compared with approximately 30,950 as of
December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "We are a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials,
which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. We are typically named as one of a
large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the
majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified
which of our products is the basis of a claim. Claims against us
in which a product has been identified most commonly relate to
allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing insulating material
used in conjunction with turbines and electrical equipment.
"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. We do not report as pending those claims on inactive,
stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have
established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As
of March 31, 2020, we had pending approximately 31,080 asbestos
claims, as compared with approximately 30,950 as of December 31,
2019. During the first quarter of 2020, we received approximately
730 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket
approximately 600 claims. We report claims as closed when we
become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or
when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material
terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness
of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of
evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs
for the years 2019 and 2018 for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately
US$58 million and US$45 million, respectively. Our costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and
insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as
the insured portion of the expenses.
"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease. The predominant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict
future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may impact
the estimate of our asbestos liabilities, including, among others,
the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such
claims. We record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is
both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the
amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We believe that
our accrual and insurance are adequate to cover our asbestos
liabilities. Our liability estimate is based upon many factors,
including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost
per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim
filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new
claims, as well as consultation with a third party firm on trends
that may impact our future asbestos liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/sbyYwP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Faces PI Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation ("Wabtec") and
certain of its affiliates still defend themselves against
asbestos-related claims in the U.S., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Claims have been filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the
United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. Further information and
detail on these claims are described in the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, in Note 20
therein, filed on February 24, 2020. During the first three months
of 2020, there were no material changes to the information
described in the Form 10-K related to claims arising from asbestos
exposure."
The Company said in its Form 10-K filing with the SEC for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, "Most of these claims have
been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction
Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and the vast majority of the claims,
including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance
carriers for defense and indemnity, or to non-affiliated companies
that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at
issue. We cannot, however, assure that all of these claims will be
fully covered by insurance, or that the indemnitors or insurers
will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial
liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other
pending litigation, cannot be estimated."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3VzWwf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner-Lambert Defends Claims vs. American Optical
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2020, that its wholly owned subsidiary, Warner-Lambert,
continues to defend claims against American Optical pending in
various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials.
The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Claims against American Optical and numerous other defendants are
pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for
alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert was acquired by
Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.
Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will
continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2tbdcr
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 1,025 PI Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company still faces approximately 1,025 asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits as of March 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "We have been named a defendant in
asbestos-related personal injury litigation. To date, the costs
resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not
been significant. As of March 31, 2020, there were approximately
1,025 such lawsuits. We believe that we have substantial insurance
coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with
respect to asbestos claims. We also have valid defenses to these
asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to
defend them vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow
substantially, it is possible that we could incur significant costs
resolving these cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending
asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash
flows. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible
such proceedings or matters could have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ll4ztQ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $73.9MM Libby Costs at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$73.9 million
at March 31, 2020, for response costs related to a vermiculite mine
in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite processing sites
outside of Libby, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990. Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products. Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.
"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state, and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area, known as
Operable Unit 3 ("OU3"). The RI/FS will determine the specific
areas within OU3 requiring remediation and will identify possible
remedial action alternatives. Possible remedial actions within OU3
are wide-ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.
"As part of the RI/FS process, Grace contracted an engineering and
consulting firm to develop a range of possible remedial
alternatives and associated cost estimates for OU3. Based on this
work, Grace recorded a pre-tax charge of US$70.0 million in the
2018 third quarter for the estimated costs of remediation of OU3.
Grace believes that this amount should provide for a protective
remedy meeting the statutory requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
"The estimated costs of remediation are preliminary and consist of
several components, each of which may vary significantly as the
remedial alternatives are further developed. It is reasonably
possible that the ultimate costs of remediation could range between
US$30 million and US$170 million. Grace is working closely with
the EPA, and the ultimate remedy will be determined by the EPA
after the RI/FS is finalized. Such remedy will be set forth in a
Record of Decision ("ROD") that is currently expected to be issued
by the EPA no earlier than 2022. Costs associated with the more
active remedial alternatives would be expected to be incurred over
a decade or more. Grace will reevaluate its estimated liability as
remedial alternatives evolve based on further work by the
engineering and consulting firm and discussions with the EPA as the
RI/FS process moves toward a ROD. Technical memoranda expected
prior to the issuance of the ROD may provide insight into the
likely remedial alternatives ultimately selected, allowing Grace to
update its cost of remediation estimate. Depending on the remedial
alternatives that the EPA selects in the ROD, the total cost of
remediating OU3 may exceed Grace's current estimate by material
amounts.
"Grace has cooperated with the EPA in investigating and remediating
a number of formerly owned or operated sites that processed Libby
vermiculite into finished products. Grace has recorded a liability
for remaining expected EPA response and oversight costs, and for
potential future site remediation, where a review has indicated
that liability is probable and the cost is estimable. The EPA may
commence additional investigations in the future at other sites
that processed Libby vermiculite. Liability for unaccrued
additional investigation and remediation costs is probable but not
yet estimable, and could be material.
"Grace's estimated liability for response costs that are currently
estimable for OU3 and vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby
at March 31, 2020, and December 31, 2019, totaled US$73.9 million
and US$76.0 million, respectively. It is possible that Grace's
ultimate liability for these vermiculite-related matters will
exceed current estimates by material amounts."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0TpQv7
*********
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 ***