/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200612.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 12, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 118
Headlines
3M CO: Bid to Transfer Venue in Welfare Fund Suit Pending
3M CO: Summary Judgment Motions Pending in Defective Earplugs Suit
ACUANT INC: Seventh Circuit Appeal Initiated in Kloss BIPA Suit
ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS: Bugarin Seeks Ticket Refund
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: El-Far Sues Over Low Property Damage Value
AMERICAN FIRE: Cascadia Dental Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
AMERICAN SALES: Aponte Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
AMERITALIA LLC: Martinez et al Seek Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff
APACHE CORP: Still Defends Rhea and Allen Suits in Oklahoma
ARCOAIRE AIR: Oddo Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
ATBCOIN LLC: Cryptocurrency Case Provides Guidance on Settlements
AUSTRALIA: PFAS Settlement Won't End Contamination Concerns
AXA FINANCIAL: Broadway 104 Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Loan Officers, Pillsbury Claims
BANKERS INSURANCE: Holloman Sues Over Denial of Insurance Claims
BANKROLL CAPITAL: Floyd Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Messages
BLAND LANDSCAPING: Roldan Sues Over Unlawful Wages for Foremen
CARNIVAL CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Suit
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Suit
CASA OFELIA'S: Faces Avedana Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
CASPER SLEEP: Faces IPO-related Securities Class Action
CASPER SLEEP: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
CDM FEDERAL: Hollington Sues over Failure to Properly Pay Wages
CHINA: Patella et al. Sue Over Role in COVID-19 Transmission
COOKWARE COMPANY: Seeks Dismissal of Frying Pan Class Action
DEFENSE TAX: Bid for Class Certification Denied w/o Prejudice
FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON: Doval Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
FAMILY HEALTH: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Frost et al. Claim
FARMERS GROUP: Denied Insurance Claims, Pappy's Barber et al. Say
FIRST MERCURY: Raven and The Bow Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Mustang MT82 Transmission
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Birnbaum Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Robinson et al. Sue Over Defective CUE System
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Doe Seeks Fee Refund Over COVID-19 Closure
GLOBE LIFE: Settlement Evaluation in Joh & Hamilton Suits Ongoing
GLOBE LIFE: Unit Faces Berry Suit in Pennsylvania
GOOGLE LLC: Must Face Class Action Over Sharing Search Terms
GRAND CANYON: BARJO Reminds of July 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
GRAND CANYON: July 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GSX TECHEDU: BARJO Reminds of June 16 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
GSX TECHEDU: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of Class Action
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: July 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Refused to Pay Dentists for COVID-19 Losses
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Denies Claim for COVID-19 Losses, KSD Alleges
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Probes Securities Violations
HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Action
HERTZ GLOBAL: Falsely Reports Customers for Car Theft, Gider Says
HOME DEPOT: Golden Appeals E.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Action Moves Forward
HOWMET AEROSPACE: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
HUNGRY MAN: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Castaneda Employment Suit
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Hernandez Seeks Refunds Over COVID-19 Crisis
ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Fees, Thiele Claims
IQIYI INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of Investors of June 15 Deadline
IQIYI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of Class Action
JANSSEN BIOTECH: KPH Alleges Abiraterone Acetate Market Monopoly
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Thalman"
JOE HAAS CONSTRUCTION: Underpays General Laborers, Carter Claims
JOHNS HOPKINS: Class Action Seeks Partial Tuition Reimbursement
JUUL LABS: Promotes eCigarettes to Minors, School Districts Say
L BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ohio Class Suit Pending
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Unlawfully Collects Pay-to-Pay Fees, Brown Claims
LANNETT CO: Settlement of Suit Over JSP Distribution Deal Okayed
LLOYD'S LONDON: Refuses Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, IRG Alleges
LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Sues Over Illegal Processing Fees
LYFT INC: Cunningham Appeals Order in Employment Suit to 1st Cir.
LYFT INC: First Cir. Appeal Filed in Cunningham Employment Suit
MAINE: Businesses File Class Action v. Governor Over Quarantine
MEN OF STEEL: Goundry Seeks Unpaid Wages for Construction Workers
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Guan Sues Over Defect in Camshaft Adjusters
MIDLAND CREDIT: Must Face New Jersey FDCPA Class Action
MITAC DIGITAL: Livingston Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Otzelberger Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
NEBRASKA: Class Action Status Denied in Suit v. Corrections Dept.
NEW YORK TEACHERS: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Pellegrino Suit
NEWMARK WOOD: Cespedes Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
NUSR-ET STEAKHOUSE: Workers' FLSA Class Action Tossed
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Bid to Dismiss Stirling Class Suit Pending
ORANGE, CA: Ahlman Seeks to Certify Classes & SubClasses
PACE FUNDING: CPM and HERA File Solar Panel Finance Class Action
PANARIUM KISSENA: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Luo Suit
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Tuition Refunds
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unreimbursed Tuition, Fees
PFIZER INC: Intravenous Saline Solution-Related Suit Dismissed
PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Underway
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales
PHOENIX TREE: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Class Action Lawsuit
PNC BANK: Kazi Seeks to Certify Mortgage Loan Officers Class
POLSKIE LINIE: Faces Melnyk Class Suit in District of New Jersey
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Xian Challenges Acquisition by Alexion
RAILSERVE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Batista Alleges
ROCHESTER DRUG: VK Acquisitions Buying Assets for $13.5 Million
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Doe Seeks Fee Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure
RYDER SYSTEM: July 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
RYDER SYSTEM: Rosen Notes of July 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
SCHWAN'S HOME: Lundbom Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit
SIERRA MOUNTAIN: Faces Perez Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
SIROB IMPORTS: Final Settlement Approval in Guevara et al. Sought
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
SOUTH STATE BANK: Fludd Sues Over Collection of NSF or OD Fees
SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Certification of Hourly Employees Class Sought
TAK COMMUNICATIONS: Diaz and Trigo Seek Proper Pay for Technicians
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Bath Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
UNITED STATES LIABILITY: Deoleo Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Appeals Decision in Securities Suit
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA: Fiore Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
VAIL CORP: Must Provide Unlimited Passes, Rarick Argues
VALHI INC: NL Industries Still Faces Lawsuits over Lead Pigments
VITAL ONE: Court Dismisses Dickey TCPA Suit Without Prejudice
WELLS FARGO: Aug. 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WELLS FARGO: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Labor-Related Class Litigation Underway
WESTROCK SERVICES: Faces Castrejon Employment Suit in California
WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast and Simone Seek Proper Pay for Flaggers
ZARA USA: Gillett Seeks Overtime Pay for Manual Workers
[*] Cos. Need Prudent Responses to the Price Gouging Legal Regime
[*] Dentons Notes of Risks for Senior Homes in Western Canada
[*] New Normal Redefines Class Action Litigation
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $201.4MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 6,281 Claims Still Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Lift Stay in D/C Bankruptcy Case Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Had $255MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,742 Unresolved Claims at April 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $4.8MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Spent $17MM for Manhattan Incident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 169 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $596MM Reserves in March
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $82MM Claims Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $35MM to Honeywell in 1Q 2020
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,138 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Had $116.3MM Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Still Continue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Faces Suits at April 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $768,000 Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Still Faces PL Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Int'l Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 596 New Claims in 1Q 2020
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $121.2MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Had $24MM Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 119 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Suit vs. Liggett Still Stayed at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Has $0.5MM Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp Still Faces Falk PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Defends Stearns PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Has PI Claims in March
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has Less Than 500 US Cases, 50 in Europe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has Less Than 150 Claims in March
*********
3M CO: Bid to Transfer Venue in Welfare Fund Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota of the consolidated
class action suit initiated by Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472
& 172 Welfare Fund, is pending.
In July 2019, Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare
Fund filed a putative securities class action against 3M Company,
its former Chairman and CEO, current Chairman and CEO, and current
CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In August 2019, an individual plaintiff filed a similar putative
securities class action in the same district. Plaintiffs allege
that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding 3M's
exposure to liability associated with Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFAS), and bring claims for damages under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 against the individual defendants.
In October 2019, the court consolidated the securities class
actions and appointed a group of lead plaintiffs.
In January 2020, defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is in
the early stages of litigation.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M CO: Summary Judgment Motions Pending in Defective Earplugs Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs and the company have
filed preliminary summary judgment motions in the class action suit
related to Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 earplugs.
Aearo Technologies (Aearo) sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version
2 earplugs starting in about 2003. 3M Company (3M) acquired Aearo
Technologies in 2008 and sold these earplugs from 2008 through
2015, when the product was discontinued.
In December 2018, a military veteran filed an individual lawsuit
against 3M in the San Bernardino Superior Court in California
alleging that he sustained personal injuries while serving in the
military caused by 3M's Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs – Version
2.
The plaintiff asserts claims of product liability and fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment.
The plaintiff seeks various damages, including medical and related
expenses, loss of income, and punitive damages.
As of March 31, 2020, the Company is a named defendant in
approximately 2,787 lawsuits (including 14 putative class actions)
in various state and federal courts that purport to represent
approximately 11,582 individual claimants making similar
allegations.
In April 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in
federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL)
proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Discovery is
underway.
The plaintiffs and 3M have filed preliminary summary judgment
motions.
No liability has been recorded for these matters because the
Company believes that any such liability is not probable and
estimable at this time.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
ACUANT INC: Seventh Circuit Appeal Initiated in Kloss BIPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Acuant, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Shanice Kloss v. Acuant, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-06353, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use, and storage
of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant uses various identity
verification technologies, such as the Acuant FaceTM technology, to
extract the biometric facial geometry templates of these
individuals and compare such biometric information to their photo
ID. This requires the individuals to upload a driver's license,
photo ID, or passport and then a photo of themselves or otherwise
undergo a scan of their facial geometry, often taken through a
webcam. Acuant Face (TM) is sometimes combined with other systems
including Idscan (TM), AssureID (TM), Review (TM), Ozone (TM),
which all rely on extraction of biometric information. All of this
allows for both identity verification and age verification of
individuals by Defendant's customers via the Defendant's
technology.
The appellate case is captioned as Acuant, Inc. v. Shanice Kloss,
Case No. 20-8016, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent SHANICE KLOSS, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:
Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
E-mail: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
Defendant-Petitioner ACUANT, INC. is represented by:
Douglas H. Meal, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
222 Berkeley Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 880-1880
E-mail: dmeal@orrick.com
- and -
Tiffany Carpenter, Esq.
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
200 S. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 372-4000
E-mail: tcarpenter@howardandhoward.com
- and -
David T. Cohen, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 W. 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019-6142
Telephone: (212) 506-3566
E-mail: david.cohen@orrick.com
- and -
Michelle L. Visser, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 773-5518
E-mail: mvisser@orrick.com
ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS: Bugarin Seeks Ticket Refund
-----------------------------------------------
ASHLEY BUGARIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS CO., LTD., Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-03341-SVK (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2020) is a class
action lawsuit on the failure of Defendant All Nippon Airways Co.,
Ltd. to provide full refunds to customers including the Plaintiff,
whose flights were cancelled as a result of the coronavirus, or
COVID-19.
Plaintiff, like many other travelers, was scheduled to fly with All
Nippon. As part of Plaintiff's trip, Plaintiff was to embark on a
departing flight from or destined for the United States: a
departing flight from San Jose, California to Tokyo, Japan, and a
return flight from Tokyo to San Francisco, California.
Plaintiff contacted All Nippon about a cash refund several times
and was on the phone for several hours each time, but she was never
able to reach a representative of All Nippon. Plaintiff has not
been refunded by All Nippon for her return flight, despite these
repeated requests.
All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd. is the largest airline in Japan by
revenues and passenger numbers. Its headquarters are located in
Shiodome City Center in Tokyo.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
ykrivoshey@bursor.com
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: El-Far Sues Over Low Property Damage Value
------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMED EL-FAR, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio
residents similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, and AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01049-JZ (N.D. Ohio, May 14, 2020) is
a class action complaint brought against Defendants' alleged breach
of contract.
Plaintiff is a policyholder of Defendants' property insurance.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff's insured residential home
suffered substantial damage on or about January 30, 2020 and thus
he requested payment for the damage to the Home by submitting an
insurance claim to Defendants.
Although Defendants confirmed the damage and that they had an
obligation and duty to pay Plaintiff, Defendants understated the
actual cash value (ACV) of property damage by depreciating the
labor component of repair costs and other no-material costs.
The complaint affirms that Defendant's policy contains no
definition of depreciation, but nonetheless provides that Defendant
will only pay the ACV of a loss to the insured until the completion
of the repair or replacement of the damaged property.
American Family Mutual Insurance Company and American Family
Insurance Company sell property and casualty insurance in the State
of Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. DeRoche, Esq.
GARSON JOHNSON LLC
1600 Midland Building
101 West Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
Tel: (216)696-9330
Fax: (216)696-8558
Email: jderoche@garson.com
- and -
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Tel: (440)352-3391
Fax: (440)352-3469
Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
AMERICAN FIRE: Cascadia Dental Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case CASCADIA DENTAL SPECIALISTS INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00732 (W.D.
Wash., May 14, 2020) arises following the decision of the Defendant
to deny claims for coverage to Plaintiff whose business property
has sustained direct physical loss and/or damage related to
COVID-19 and/or the proclamations and orders issued by Washington
Governor Jay Inslee.
Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to maintain
income in case of an insured loss. This lawsuit is filed to ensure
that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated policyholders receive
the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which
they paid. American Fire issued one or more insurance policies to
Plaintiff, including the Commercial Protector Policy and related
endorsements, insuring Plaintiff's property and business and other
coverages from July 1, 2019, to July 1, 2020. Plaintiff paid all
premiums for the coverage when due.
Defendant American Fire's insurance policy issued to Plaintiff
promises to pay Plaintiff for "direct physical loss of or physical
damage to" covered property.
According to the complaint, denying coverage for the claim is a
breach of the insurance contract. Plaintiff is harmed by the breach
of the insurance contract by American Fire.
Plaintiff Cascadia Dental Specialists Inc. owns and operates a
dental business in Washington.
American Fire and Casualty Company is an insurance carrier
incorporated and domiciled in New Hampshire, with its principal
place of business in Boston, Massachusetts.[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 Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (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 L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
AMERICAN SALES: Aponte Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANNY APONTE v. AMERICAN SALES MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION, LLC, and
FRANCISCO JAVIER AGUSTIN RABELL TORELLO, Case No. 107754579 (Fla.
Cir., Dade Cty., May 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other opt in similarly situated employees for damages
exceeding $30,000, excluding attorneys' fees or costs, for unpaid
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant deducted lunch break
hours of 2 hours a week but required her to work through the lunch
break while working off the clock. She adds that she worked
numerous unpaid overtime hours and or straight time hours for which
no compensation was received.
The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee from February 2017 to April 2019.
The Defendant is doing business in the security system services
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: 305-416-5000
Facsimile: 305-416-5000
AMERITALIA LLC: Martinez et al Seek Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MARTINEZ and DESIDERIO ROMERO SARMIENTO, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees, Plaintiffs v. AMERITALIA, LLC d/b/a Coco's Italian
Market and Restaurant, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, and
CHARLES "CHUCK' CINELLI, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00410 (M.D. Tenn., May 14, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for their alleged failure to
properly compensate employees in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiffs worked at Coco's Italian Market and Restaurant as
hourly-paid, non-exempt kitchen staff during the three-year
period.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
members worked in excess of 40 hours per week. But, instead of
paying them overtime wage at one and one-half times their
hourly-rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours,
Defendant would pay them in cash for overtime hours they worked.
Allegedly, the cash payments failed to properly compensate
Plaintiff and the Class members' overtime hours worked.
Charles "Chuck" Cinelli is. the owner of Ameritalia, LLC d/b/a
Coco's Italian Market and Restaurant and exercises operational
control over its employees during the statutory period.
Ameritalia, LLC owns and operates Coco's Italian Market and
Restaurant, Coco's Tours & Travel Agency, and Coco's Event Center.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER,
HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
Emails: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Tel: (615) 851-1776
Fax: (615) 859-7033
Email: nina@poncelaw.com
APACHE CORP: Still Defends Rhea and Allen Suits in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend the cases, Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No.
6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation,
Case No. CJ-2019-00219, in Oklahoma.
Apache is a party to two class actions in Oklahoma styled Bigie Lee
Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert
Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation, Case No. CJ-2019-00219.
The Rhea case has been certified, and Apache's appeal of the
certification was recently denied.
The case includes a class of royalty owners seeking damages in
excess of $200 million for alleged breach of the implied covenant
to market relating to post-production deductions and alleged
natural gas liquids (NGL) uplift value.
The Allen case has not been certified and seeks to represent a
group of owners who have allegedly received late payments under
Oklahoma statutes.
Apache said, "The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably
determinable. While adverse judgments against the Company are
possible, the Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits
and claims."
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which explores
for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas
liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
ARCOAIRE AIR: Oddo Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Steve Oddo, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Steve Oddo, et al. v. Arcoaire Air
Conditioning and Heating, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01985-CAS-E, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Santa Ana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Christina A. Snyder entered an order:
1. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification;
2. denying as moot Carrier Corporation's motion to exclude
opinions of Paul J. Sikorsky and Plaintiffs' motions to
exclude the expert reports of Ravi Dhar, Wayne Schneyer,
and John H. Johnson;
3. denying Linda Lamm's request to certify the Georgia
Injunctive Relief Class, purportedly consisting of:
"all original purchasing owners and subsequent owners in
Georgia, including individuals and entities, that purchased
new, 1.5- to 5-ton Carrier condensing units or Small
Packaged air conditioning units that utilize 410A
refrigerant and contain an Emerson scroll compressor with a
serial number beginning 13L through 14H, but excluding the
compressors identified by Emerson in CARRIER_0043279 as not
containing Ryconox"; and
4. denying Parties' various motions to strike expert testimony
as moot.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages that arose from an alleged
manufacturing defect in their HVAC systems that has allegedly
caused widespread failures of Thermal Expansion Valves ("TXVs")
used in the units. The TXV "is a precision valve that controls the
expansion of refrigerant central to the cooling process."
The Court held that both parties raise numerous issues with the
expert testimony proffered by the opposing party. However, even
accepting Plaintiffs' expert testimony in its entirety, and
disregarding Carrier's expert testimony, the Court finds that class
certification is inappropriate.
The appellate case is captioned as Steve Oddo, et al. v. Arcoaire
Air Conditioning and Heating, et al., Case No. 20-80084, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners STEVE ODDO, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
E-mail: TimothyMathews@chimicles.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Kolin Tang, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1401 Dove Street, Suite 540
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (323) 510-4060
E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com
Defendants-Respondents ARCOAIRE AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING, et
al., are represented by:
Devin Anderson, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5198
E-mail: devin.anderson@kirkland.com
- and -
Carl Robert Boldt, Esq.
Jonathan Jeffrey Faria, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
E-mail: robert.boldt@kirkland.com
- and -
Sarah E. Smith, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 879-5271
E-mail: sarah.smith@kirkland.com
ATBCOIN LLC: Cryptocurrency Case Provides Guidance on Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BakerHostetler wrote an article in JD Supra on the Tezos and ATB
cryptocurrency class action cases that provide guidance on
different factors driving settlements against ICO issuers for
securities laws registration violations.
On April 30, 2020, a federal court in San Francisco preliminarily
approved a $25 million class action settlement against the
Swiss-based Tezos Foundation, its Californian founders, and other
domestic and foreign firms directly involved in the 2017 initial
coin offering (ICO) of its token, XTZ. The Tezos offering was
conducted on a worldwide basis to both sophisticated, accredited
investors and the general public, raising more than $233 million.
As of June 2, 2020, the XTZ token was ranked number 10 on
CoinMarketCap at a price of $3.08 per token. The $25 million
settlement amounts to about 10 percent of the total amount raised
in the Tezos offering.
On April 10, 2020, another securities class action against
Delaware-based ATBCOIN LLC (ATB) and its foreign founders,
involving the 2017 ICO of the ATB token, preliminarily settled for
$250,000, which represents about 1 percent of the $25 million in
funds allegedly raised. Weeks later, on May 12, the attorney for
the ATB defendants wrote to the federal judge in Connecticut
presiding over the case, explaining that, upon further reflection,
the defendants could not pay even that paltry settlement sum. The
ATB token was ranked number 1,653 on CoinMarketCap at a price of
$.001188 per token as of June 2, 2020.
Class action lawsuits continue to be brought against ICO issuers,
with a dozen new lawsuits recently filed against mostly foreign
issuers and foreign individuals for similar registration violations
in New York. While traditional reasons for settling class actions,
such as risk of huge damages to a class, large litigation expenses
and defendants' ability to pay, seem present in the proposed
settlements in the Tezos and ATB cases, some unique issues
attributable to these worldwide offerings of digital currencies may
provide useful insights into the likely outcomes for parties
involved in these newly filed and future ICO class actions.
I. A Tale of Two Cases
A. The Tezos Case
Tezos promised to be "the last cryptocurrency." The Tezos
blockchain was developed by Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. (DLS),
which was founded by a California-based husband-and-wife team,
Arthur and Kathleen Breitman. DLS was funded in part by a venture
capital firm run by the well-known venture capitalist, Tim Draper.
In July 2017, the Tezos ICO was conducted by the Tezos Foundation,
a Swiss entity, but with significant contacts with the United
States - for example, it was allegedly founded, set up, and run by
the Breitmans out of their California home. Bitcoin Suisse AG, a
Switzerland-based financial service provider, acted as an
intermediary in the ICO by providing virtual currency conversion
services to foreign investors and then handling their ICO
contributions. Throughout the ICO, XTZ was sold for roughly $0.47
on average.
The Tezos capital raise took in $232 million worth of bitcoin and
ether,[1] making it the largest ICO at the time. On November 26,
2017, investors filed suit in the Northern District of California,
alleging that the Tezos ICO was an unregistered, and therefore
illegal, securities offering. The two counts included violations of
Sections 5, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act). The defendants included the Tezos Foundation, DLS,
Bitcoin Suisse (a foreign firm), Tim Draper and his VC firm, and
the Breitmans, as "control persons" of the Tezos Foundation under
Section 15 of the Securities Act.
On May 15, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the case. Among
the more interesting issues in the motion was whether the court had
jurisdiction over the Tezos Foundation and Bitcoin Suisse, given
that the ICO was meant to be directed solely to investors outside
the United States.[2] However, in a detailed decision by Judge
Seeborg, the court largely denied the motion and allowed the case
to proceed against the Breitmans and the Tezos Foundation (the
motion was granted on jurisdictional or other grounds as to Bitcoin
Suisse, Draper and his VC firm).
The remaining parties went through almost two years of heavy
litigation, including more than a year of discovery and two rounds
of mediation. In addition, the class moved for certification,
proposing to define the class as all persons and entities who,
directly or indirectly, contributed bitcoin or ether to the Tezos
ICO during the offering conducted July 1-14, 2017. Throughout the
litigation, the Tezos Foundation remained financially viable,
reporting in March 2020 assets in excess of $630 million,[3] which
was almost triple the amount it had raised in the ICO. The Tezos
token itself is currently worth over $3.00.
Late this March, the parties reached a settlement that required the
class members be paid $25 million. The plaintiffs for the class
moved for the court's approval of the settlement and outlined the
reasons for accepting it, including that the parties had
fundamental disagreements on legal issues such as: (1) whether the
Tezos tokens are "securities" under the federal securities laws;
(2) whether investors were bound by the so-called "Contribution
Terms"; (3) whether the defendants are "sellers" under Section
12(a)(1) of the Securities Act; (4) whether the Breitmans are
controlling persons under Section 15 of the Securities Act; and (5)
whether the Securities Act applies under the Morrison decision.[4]
In more traditional class actions involving the securities of U.S.
public companies, there are rarely material issues or defenses
raised based on lack of personal jurisdiction over the foreign
defendants, as there were here, or lack of subject matter
jurisdiction based on whether the token sold was an "investment
contract" and thus a "security" for federal securities purposes.
Separately, to the extent all the "securities" transactions were
foreign, the United States Supreme Court decision in Morrison might
act as an independent ground to preclude the federal court from
jurisdiction over the case. The parties also disputed the proper
measure of damages – estimates presented by the parties during
mediation discussions ranged from less than $1 million to more than
$150 million.
Papers filed with the court provided extensive details on the
mechanics of the settlement. Investors were from all over the
globe, and they invested on a blockchain, where their identity was
difficult to discern, unlike in more traditional class actions
where all a claims administrator need do is obtain from a company's
transfer agent the list of shareholders and place a public
advertisement in a well-known business media outlet. Here, a
professional claims administrator, Epiq Class Actions & Claims
Solutions, Inc., was chosen to identify and communicate with class
members, through Reddit and Twitter and elsewhere, assess their
proof of claims, and conduct payouts. Epiq would primarily rely on
information provided by class members to Tezos in connection with
the ICO, such as their email addresses and bank wire information.
At a hearing on April 30th, the settlement was preliminarily
approved by the court. A hearing is scheduled in August for final
approval.
B. The ATB Case
The case arising from the ICO involving ATB, self-touted as "the
fastest blockchain-based cryptographic network in the Milky Way
galaxy," had a similar start. The ICO was conducted between June
and September 2017. The ATB token was sold for about $1.27, and the
raise brought in more than $20 million worth of cryptocurrency. But
on December 21, 2017, investors filed a $25 million lawsuit in the
Southern District of New York, alleging that the ICO constituted
the illegal sale of unregistered securities. The two counts alleged
violations of Sections 12 and 15 of the Securities Act. Defendants
included ATB (a Delaware corporation) and its founders and
executives, Edward Ng (a resident of China) and Herbert Hoover (a
resident of Indonesia). The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in
April 2018, arguing that no federal securities laws were violated
because the token was not a "security" and that the court lacked
personal jurisdiction over Ng and Hoover. That motion was denied in
its entirety in March 2019.
In April 2020, the parties entered into a stipulation to settle the
case, and the lead plaintiff filed for court approval. But, unlike
the Tezos class, the ATB class members were to receive pennies on
their investment. Despite initially suing for $25 million, the
settlement amount was only $250,000 – with about a third of that
sum likely for attorney's fees. The lead plaintiff conceded to the
court that the main focus in negotiating the settlement was the
defendants' ability – or, more precisely, inability – to pay
any judgment, representing that defendants were "judgment-proof,"
and that securing any recovery was "very likely to be difficult or
impossible." This was especially the case with the two founders
being foreigners living abroad.
The settlement also differed from Tezos because, here, the class
had not moved for certification previously. Accordingly, the
settlement papers explained for the first time why the class was
certifiable, defining the class as all persons that purchased or
otherwise acquired ATB tokens between June 12 and September 15,
2017, while located in the United States at the time of their
transaction. The settlement papers also explained why the class was
ascertainable--a certification requirement for the Second Circuit
restricting a class to one whose members are truly determinable in
practice.
Like traditional securities class actions, the settlement approval
papers explained that class members could be identified through
investor trading records and the defendants' records. However, the
papers explained that class members were also identifiable through
records such as confirmations from virtual currency exchanges and
cryptocurrency wallet records. For example, the lead plaintiff
provided documents that indicated that on August 21, 2017, he paid
2.100441 ether for 388.5 ATB tokens. These records, the class's
counsel explained, could be cross-referenced against the relevant
blockchains (containing unbroken ledgers detailing the nature of
each transaction), thereby ensuring accuracy in ascertaining the
class. The approval request proceeded to outline other proposed
mechanics of the settlement, including the use of a professional
claims administrator, Strategic Claims Services.
After these papers were filed, however, the ATB defendants
apparently had second thoughts. On May 12, 2020, the defendants'
counsel wrote to the court telling it that the defendants, "due to
a change in circumstance," would not be able to fund the
settlement.
II. Key Takeaways
The Tezos and ATB cases are apparently the first reported
settlements of ICO class actions involving solely registration
violations, as opposed to fraud claims, and the two could not have
more different outcomes for the class members. Also, they both
raise issues that are not usually found or raised as defenses in
more traditional class action involving U.S. public companies and
their securities. Below are some of the key takeaways and unique
issues from these settlements.
A. Ability to Pay
The most obvious reason for the discrepancy in the settlement
amounts between the two litigations is the defendants' ability to
pay the class. The Tezos defendants had money – this is supported
by publicly filed documents, the XTZ trading price, and, likely,
information divulged during discovery and mediation. In the ATB
case, both parties told the court that the defendants were
incapable of paying a substantial settlement amount.
B. Foreign Defendants Jurisdiction and Collection
In both actions, several of the foreign defendants raised lack of
personal jurisdiction as a defense. In the Tezos case, the Swiss
firm was successful in obtaining dismissal, whereas in the ATB
case, the individual defendants were not. Given that most ICOs
begin abroad, it is likely this type of defense will continue to be
raised as an impediment to holding individuals resident in foreign
jurisdictions subject to U.S. courts.
In addition, having foreign defendants makes discovery more
difficult and more expensive. Many foreign countries have more
onerous discovery rules than those of the United States. In China,
for example, a citizen may not give a deposition on Chinese soil
without certain government authorization. Document collections are
also more difficult due to certain legal restrictions, including
privacy laws, that are inapplicable in the United States. These
factors influence settlement because the domestic class action
attorney--who is often working on contingency (as is the case in
ATB) may be more hesitant to expend the resources needed to conduct
effective discovery.
Finally, and importantly, having foreign defendants means that,
even if the parties go through discovery and trial, and even if the
class "succeeds," enforcing that judgment can be very difficult. In
many jurisdictions there are foreign laws that hinder the
recognition and collection of an American judgment.
C. Scope of the Class and Ascertainability
The scope of the proposed classes in the Tezos and ATB cases may
have also factored into their different outcomes. The Tezos
plaintiffs had already separately moved for class certification.
Because the certification motion had not yet been decided,
plaintiffs also moved for certification for the purpose of
settlement. In both of these detailed motions, the Tezos class was
defined as all persons who contributed bitcoin or ether to the
Tezos ICO conducted between July 1, 2017 and July 13, 2017. Thus,
both U.S. and non-U.S. investors were included in the class.
The ATB plaintiffs never moved for certification prior to filing
settlement papers. Only at that point did they request preliminary
certification for settlement purposes. Similar to the Tezos class,
the ATB class was defined as all persons who acquired ATB tokens
during the ATB ICO. Unlike Tezos, however, the scope of the class
members was narrowed to those who made their transactions "while
located within the United States at the time of their
transaction."[5] In other words, apparently, only investors located
in the United States would be deemed class members.
Yet in requesting preliminary class certification, the ATB
plaintiffs stated that the class would be ascertained through
receipts of purchase (such as email confirmations and
cryptocurrency wallet records), which could then be cross
referenced by the relevant blockchains. Similar means have been
accepted by at least one other court as an adequate means of
ascertaining class members who were defined by their purchase of
tokens.[6] However, while purchase receipts and blockchain
confirmation may evidence whether the purchase of an ATB token
occurred, it is unclear how it could evidence the location of the
purchaser at the time the transaction was made.
D. Procedural Context and Discovery on "Security" Issue
The difference in the procedural settings of the Tezos and ATB
cases is also significant in understanding the discrepancy in
ultimate proposed settlement amounts. Tezos had been through
discovery and two mediations. This means the parties had more
transparency into the strengths and weaknesses of their respective
cases, such as on the strength of proving whether or not the Tezos
token was a "security." The ATB parties did not conduct substantial
discovery. While the ATB plaintiffs succeeded on their motion to
dismiss (where the court is required to accept their allegations as
true), there was far less factual development as to the actual
validity of their registration violation claims. And again, there
was more uncertainty as to whether the ATB defendants had the
finances to pay out a significant settlement, and whether any
settlement could actually be collected.
III. Conclusion
ICOs have mostly vanished from the capital raising playbook over
the past two years, and the federal one-year statute of limitations
for registration violations will likely limit ICO class actions in
the future based solely on Section 5 violations. However, there are
still a number of such cases active on court dockets, and the Tezos
and ATB cases can provide useful guidance on unique issues that ICO
litigation against mostly foreign defendants raise, and how they
may be resolved.
The Tezos defendants decided to settle for a relatively significant
sum, once their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
was denied, rather than face the uncertainty of a greater judgment
against them. Though they did preserve the right to claim the Tezos
token was not a "security". Ultimately, though, the remaining
defendants settled because they found themselves in the difficult
but familiar terrain of an unsuccessful motion to dismiss, limited
discovery, and a likely finding of class certification.
The ATB plaintiffs decided that any settlement was better than no
settlement, once they were successful in defeating the motion to
dismiss. The defendants' financial condition weighed heavily in
favor of that decision. This outcome is common in the long history
of securities class cases involving defendants that lack insurance
(as the ATB defendants apparently did) and that turn out to have
negligible finances. But that's not the end of the analysis. Upon a
closer look, the Tezos and ATB cases can show parties in ongoing
ICO class actions that less obvious, and less traditional, defenses
and issues, which are specific to the nature of ICOs and blockchain
technology, may well be the difference between a significant
settlement and a trivial one.
[1] The ICO raised 65,681 bitcoin and 361,122 ether.
[2] For an in-depth analysis of the decision, see Marc D. Powers
and Jonathan A. Forman, "Hard for ICOs to Avoid US Courts: Personal
Jurisdiction Found in Two Recent Securities Cases over Foreign ICO
Defendants." (Oct. 5, 2018), available at:
https://timestampmag.com/2018/10/05/hard-for-icos-to-avoid-us-courts-personal-jurisdiction-found-in-two-recent-securities-cases-over-foreign-ico-defendants/;
Marc D. Powers, et al.,"ICOs Avoiding U.S. Citizens Not Immune to
Lawsuits in U.S.," (June 1, 2018), available at:
http://blocktribune.com/icos-avoiding-us-citizens-not-immune-to-lawsuits-in-us/.
[3]See Tezos Annual Report (March 2020), available at
https://tezos.foundation/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/tezos-foundation-biannual-update-march-2020.pdf.
[4] Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 267, 130
S.Ct. 2869, 177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010)). In Morrison, the Supreme Court
held that Section 10(b), the general antifraud provision of the
Securities Act of 1934, does not apply extraterritorially in a
private cause of action involving foreign parties with a foreign
securities transaction.
[5] Balestra v. ATBCOIN LLC, No. 1:17-cv-1001, Stipulation of
Settlement (Apr. 10, 2020), ¶ 1(e), ECF 66-1.
[6] See Audet v. Fraser, 332 F.R.D. 53 (D. Conn. 2019). [GN]
AUSTRALIA: PFAS Settlement Won't End Contamination Concerns
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newcastle Herald reports that class actions, which began in
Australia in the 1990s, allow individual plaintiffs claiming
similar damages to litigate collectively, providing access to the
courts in a way that everyday people could rarely afford.
The sector's success has led corporate targets of the often
expensive payouts to complain, and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg --
citing concerns for plaintiffs -- says litigation funders will be
monitored by ASIC from August 22. A parliamentary report on class
action funding and regulation is due in December.
In the Williamtown, Oakey and Tindal RAAF bases PFAS class action,
costs will take $86 million of the $212.5 million accepted as
settlement from the Commonwealth.
Like almost all such actions, the PFAS Federal Court case did not
go to trial.
Following their lawyers' advice, the plaintiffs' steering committee
accepted the money on the table, implicitly accepting a bird in the
hand over two in the bush.
By doing so, the class action participants can lodge no further
claims for property damage.
"Personal injury" -- or health claims -- can still be pursued,
however.
The Commonwealth makes "no admission of liability" in relation to
"any of the allegations" made against it.
Red zone residents who did not take part in the class action can
still sue individually.
After costs, the Williamtown pay-outs will average about $100,000,
depending on the severity of contamination.
The meagre return has split the group, with some arguing the case
should have gone to trial, given the strength of the evidence.
This view will gain even more strength, in hindsight, should an
individual case against the Commonwealth go to trial and succeed.
For better or worse, however, the offer has been accepted, even
though it was less than many had expected, and the hundreds of
affected families must now get on with their lives as best as they
can.
Regardless of whether the class action is regarded as a success, a
failure, or somewhere in between, the big PFAS questions remain.
For those who have lived for years with exposure to PFAS, the
science surrounding its health impacts is far from settled.
And despite a clean-up of the RAAF base and some of the surrounding
waterways, the affected properties are still contaminated with
PFAS, and may be so for decades, or perhaps centuries, to come.
The fight, therefore, will continue. [GN]
AXA FINANCIAL: Broadway 104 Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
BROADWAY 104, LLC d/b/a CAFE DU SOLEIL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AXA FINANCIAL,
INC.; XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03813 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff arising from Defendants' denial of insurance coverage
for Plaintiff's business closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiff needed protection against unforeseen events that could
affect its operations and profits and invested in an "all risk"
commercial insurance policy and regularly paid monthly premiums to
Defendants for the policy. After being devastated by the impact of
COVID-19 on their business, Plaintiff promptly sought relief via
the Policy by filing a claim with Defendants to cover its losses.
The Plaintiff expected coverage for business income losses arising
from interruption of business, including coverage of extra expenses
incurred to restore his business and thus minimize his loss of
business income. In addition, the Policy provided for business
income losses caused by civil authority prohibiting access to his
restaurant. Further, the Policy provided for extended business
income losses even after operations could resume.
According to the complaint, Defendants swiftly denied Plaintiff's
claim. In denying Plaintiff's claim, Defendants wrongfully asserted
that Plaintiff's losses were not "direct physical loss of or
damage" to its business. Defendants also wrongfully asserted that
language in an endorsement to the Policy purporting to exclude
claims arising from any "virus bacterium or other microorganism"
was applicable to the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants have breached their contracts with
their insureds and have been unjustly enriched.
Plaintiff operated as Cafe Du Soleil, a family-owned restaurant in
New York, New York.
Axa Financial, Inc. is a national property-casualty insurance
company based in New York.
XL Insurance America, Inc. is a national property-casualty
insurance company with its principal place of business in Stamford,
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5C
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (917) 336-0171
Facsimile: (917) 336-0177
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Loan Officers, Pillsbury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN D. PILLSBURY, individually and on behalf of others employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP. and BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01687 (S.D. Tex., May
14, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Financial Center Lending
Officer (FCLO) since July 24, 2017.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately 80-90
hours per week during most workweeks between July 2017 to the
present. However, Defendant failed to compensate him for any hours
worked over 40.
The complaint asserts that Defendants:
-- failed to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective overtime
wages for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek;
-- misclassified them as exempt from the protection of the
FLSA; and
-- failed to record all of the time that its employees have
worked for the benefit of Defendants.
Bank of America Corp. is a Delaware corporation doing business as a
bank, mortgage lender, and financial institution nationwide and
within the State of Texas.
Bank of America, N.A. is a nationally chartered banking association
also doing business as a bank, mortgage lender, and financial
institution nationwide and within the State of Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Greenwood, Esq.
THE GREENWOOD LAW FIRM, PLLC
1415 N. Loop W., Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77008
Tel: (832)356-1588
Fax: (832)356-1589
Email: sean@gwoodlaw.com
- and –
Linda D. King, Esq.
GORANSONKING, PLLC
1415 N. Loop W., Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77008
Tel: (713)526-9200
Fax: (713)526-9202
Email: king@goransonking.com
BANKERS INSURANCE: Holloman Sues Over Denial of Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW J. HOLLOMAN, DDS & ASSOCIATES, P.L., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. BANKERS
INSURANCE GROUP, INC. and FIRST COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 20-002399-CI (Fla. 6th Cir., Pinellas Cty.,
May 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of contract.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly-situated persons or entities that are insured under the
Defendants' business owners insurance policies, alleges that the
Defendants have uniformly denied coverage under the Business Income
and Extra Expense provisions of the policies despite the direct
physical loss of covered property and an actual loss of business
income that they sustained due to the suspension or significantly
reduction of their operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Defendants also denied all claims for extra expenses incurred
to avoid or minimize the suspension of operations.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' policies do not
expressly exclude loss or damage resulting from a virus, thus the
Plaintiff and Class members' claims for loss of business income due
to the physical loss, including the loss of use, of their insured
property, are legitimate claims.
Andrew J. Holloman, DDS & Associates, P.L. is a dental practice
with its principal place of business at 2127 NE Coachman Road in
Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida.
Bankers Insurance Group, Inc. is an insurance services provider
with its principal place of business at 11101 Roosevelt Blvd. N.,
St. Petersburg, Florida.
First Community Insurance Company is an insurance agency with its
principal place of business at 11101 Roosevelt Blvd. N., St.
Petersburg, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent R. Bigger, Esq.
Andrew F. Knopf, Esq.
Landis V. Curry III, Esq.
Jeremiah C. Fues, Esq.
PAUL | KNOPF | BIGGER
8600 4th Street North
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Telephone: (855) 292-2111
E-mail: brent@pkblawfirm.com
andrew@pkblawfirm.com
1ance@pkblawfirm.com
fues@pkblawfirm.com
Vielka@pkblawfirm.com
BANKROLL CAPITAL: Floyd Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BANKROLL CAPITAL, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-03502-NC (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2020),
alleges that the Company promotes and markets its merchandise, in
part, by sending unsolicited advertisement messages via telephone
facsimile machine, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the alleged illegal actions of
Bankroll.
Bankroll is a lender based in Irvine, California, that offers small
business loans of up to $1 million.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 323-306-4234
Facsimile: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
BLAND LANDSCAPING: Roldan Sues Over Unlawful Wages for Foremen
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ROLDAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BLAND LANDSCAPING COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00276-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C., May 13, 2020) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, against Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") for failure to pay salaried non-exempt
employees for all hours worked at the appropriate hourly rate,
including the overtime premium rate, failing to pay employees all
earned, promised and accrued wages, maintaining improper records,
and subjecting Plaintiffs to unauthorized deductions from wages.
The Defendant has also maintained a corporate policy of improperly
calculating Plaintiffs regular hourly rates pursuant to a
Fluctuating Work Week ("FWW") methodology, which fails to
compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked, and takes unauthorized
deductions from employees' wages for uniform services.
The Plaintiff is presently employed by Defendant as a Foreman at
Defendant's Apex location, paid pursuant to Defendant's FWW policy
and has held that position since approximately July 2019.
Bland Landscaping Company, Inc. is a North Carolina-based company
that provides landscape design, installation, and management
services for commercial, multi-family, homeowners associations,
industrial, and institutional properties as well as residential
estate gardening.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Charlotte Smith, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Carnival
Corporation & Plc (CCL). Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
CCL Shareholders Click
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=7168&wire=1
Carnival Corporation & Plc (CCL)
CCL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 28, 2020
- May 1, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : July 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=7168&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Carnival
Corporation & Plc made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's medics
were reporting increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the
Company's ships; (2) Carnival was violating port of call
regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19
infections on board its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of
COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's own health and
safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable
disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships
were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports
throughout the world; and (5) 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.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Web site: http://www.zlk.com/
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Carnival Corporation ("Carnival" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CCL) securities between January 1, 2020 and
May 01, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Carnival investors
have until July 27, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/carnival-corporation/
On April 16, 2020, when the Company still had at sea two of its
cruise ships, Bloomberg Businessweek published an article titled
"Carnival Executives Knew They Had a Virus Problem, But Kept the
Party Going." The article stated that Carnival may have failed to
effectively protect its passengers from COVID-19 on a series of
cruise voyages, and indeed continued to operate new cruise
departures despite its knowledge that the threat posed by COVID-19
had materialized on its ships and was likely to proliferate
further.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.53 per share, or
over 4%, to close at $11.85 per share on April 16, 2020.
Then, on May 1, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an article
titled "Cruise Ships Set Sail Knowing the Deadly Risk to Passengers
and Crew." The article detailed how cruise ships, particularly
Carnival ships, facilitated the spread of COVID-19, and provided
new facts on early warning signs Carnival and its affiliated cruise
lines possessed and the Company's disclosure failures. Further, the
article also noted that The House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure had requested documents from Carnival related "to
Covid-19 or other infectious disease outbreaks aboard cruise ships"
and that testimony from a different investigation in Australia
exposed that Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines may have
misled shore officials by concealing those exhibiting COVID-19
symptoms before docking.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.97 per share, or
over 12%, to close at $13.93 per share, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company's medics were reporting increasing events of
COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) that Carnival was
violating port of call regulations by concealing the amount and
severity of COVID-19 infections on board its ships; (3) that in
responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow
the Company's own health and safety protocols developed in the wake
of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to
operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread
COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) 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.
If you purchased Carnival securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than July 27, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Carnival securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz
Tel: 310-914-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/
[GN]
CASA OFELIA'S: Faces Avedana Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
MIGDALIA AVEDANA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, -against- CASA OFELIA'S BAKERY LLC, CASA
OFELIA'S CORP (DBA AS CASA OFELIA BAKERY) MARTIN ROJAS AND SUSSY
GRICELDA AGURCIA Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02214 (S.D.N.Y., May
16, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of
herself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid
overtime wage orders pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA") and for violations of the N.Y. Lab. Law (the "NYLL")
and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs.
Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendants. She is primarily
employed to perform various duties at the Bakery that Defendants
own, such as cleaning, cooking, cash register.
Casa Ofelia's Bakery LLC owns, operates or controls a bakery at
under the name "Casa Ofelia Bakery" in New York.
Casa Ofelia's Corp. owns, operates or controls a bakery at under
the name "Casa Ofelia Bakery" in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (2120 203-2417
CASPER SLEEP: Faces IPO-related Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 8
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE: CSPR)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about February 7, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Casper investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Casper class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.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, the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Specifically, the lawsuit claims the Offering Documents made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than
growing; (2) Casper was changing an important distribution partner,
costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of
2020 alone; (3) Casper was holding a glut of old and outdated
mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply discounted
clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability;
(4) Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its
ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of
reach; (5) Casper's core operations were not profitable, but were
causing the Company to suffer over $40 million in negative cash
flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and doubling its
quarterly net loss year over year; (6) as a result of the
foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its
growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been
misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to
shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion,
jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and
significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an
imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive
operating cash flows; and (7) as a result of the foregoing,
Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not
positioned the Company to achieve profitability.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to join
the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]
CASPER SLEEP: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, on June 8 disclosed that it has commenced an investigation on
behalf of Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CSPR) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible
violations of the federal securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your Casper investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/casper-sleep-inc/.You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
In February 2020, the Company completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), in which it sold 8.35 million shares of common stock for
$12 per share.
On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size
of its global operations and sales team, as well as completely
winding down its European operations, amounting to a loss of 21% of
its workforce. The Company also stated that Gregory Macfarlane had
resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer.
On May 12, 2020, the Company announced its first quarter 2020
financial results, reporting a net loss of $34.5 million (a 98%
increase year over year) and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $22.9
million (a 60% increase year over year).
Since the IPO, Casper's share price has traded as low as $6.37 per
share, or about 47% below the $12 IPO price.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Casper should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. [GN]
CDM FEDERAL: Hollington Sues over Failure to Properly Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PERTRICEE HOLLINGTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01691 (S.D. Tex., May 14,
2020) arises from Defendants' alleged willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff worked as an inspector for Defendant under PA TAC III in
Houston, Texas, from approximately August 5, 2018 to approximately
August 28, 2018 and under PA TAC IV in Springfield, Missouri from
approximately October 1, 2019 to approximately January 15, 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per
week for Defendant on numerous occasions. But, Defendant failed to
pay him at one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for each
overtime hour he worked. Instead, Plaintiff was paid straight time
for the recorded overtime hours he worked each week.
Moreover, Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff for his 5 to 10
hours "off the clock" per week because he was not permitted to
record those hours in the company's timekeeping system.
Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid regular and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation offers environmental consulting,
engineering, construction, and operations services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis A. Clifford, Esq.
THE CLIFFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
712 Main Street, Suite 900
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: 713-999-1833
Fax: 713-518-1701
Email: dennis@cliffordemploymentlaw.com
CHINA: Patella et al. Sue Over Role in COVID-19 Transmission
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PATELLA, a sole proprietor doing business as LittleJohn's and
doing business as Platinum; TERRY SMITH KING, a sole proprietor
doing business as Roosters; and JONATHAN MAURICE BROWN, a sole
proprietor doing business as Big Time Barbershop, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA; THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA; NATIONAL HEALTH
COMMISSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; MINISTRY OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; MINISTRY OF CIVIL
AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF
HUBEI PROVINCE, PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF CITY, WUHAN INSTITUTE OF
VIROLOGY; and CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00433 (M.D.N.C., May 15, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, strict liability for
unreasonably dangerous activities, allowing transmission of
COVID-19, unlawful hoarding of PPE, negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress, intentional torts, and punitive
damages.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals and business owners in the State of
North Carolina, allege that the Defendants played a significant
role in the emergence and transmission of a new strain of the
Coronavirus, more commonly known as COVID-19. The virus began in
Wuhan, Hubei Province, China in December 2019, and has quickly
spread throughout Asia, Europe and, North America. The Plaintiffs
claim that the Defendants knew or had reason to know that COVID-19
was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic, yet slowly and
negligently acted, and/or engaged in a systematic cover-up for
their purposes. The Defendants sought to minimize the consequences
by engaging in a cover-up and a misleading public relations
campaign by censoring scientists, ordering the destruction and
suppression of valuable research, and refusing cooperation with the
global community, all in violation of international health
standards. The conduct of the Defendants has caused injury and
incalculable harm to the Plaintiffs and Class members, and such
injury and harm will only multiply in coming days and weeks. The
civil action seeks to hold the Defendants accountable for the
extraordinary public-health crisis that they created and to allow
the Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated to recoup the
damages which they have suffered as a result of Defendants' actions
and inactions. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Barrett Wilson, Jr., Esq.
JAMES BARRETT WILSON AND ASSOCIATES
411 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27127
Telephone: (336) 773-0059
Facsimile: (336) 773-0061
E-mail: james@jbwilsonlaw.com
COOKWARE COMPANY: Seeks Dismissal of Frying Pan Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that briefing is
complete on whether a proposed class action lawsuit against the
maker of an as-seen-on-TV frying pan will be thrown out of court.
The Cookware Company on June 5 filed a memorandum in further
support of its motion to dismiss, which argues plaintiff Elena Lamb
chose to file a lawsuit after three unpleasant cooking experiences
rather than taking advantage of the warranty offered.
Cookware is the maker of the Blue Diamond Enhanced Ceramic
Non-Stick Pan. Lamb says she bought it at Walmart for $20 and used
it three times, during each it disappointed.
Cookware's motion reminds the judge that there was a Limited
Lifetime Warranty printed right on the product's packaging that
entitled an unsatisfied customer to free repair or replacement of
the pan.
Lamb's unjust enrichment claim fails because there admittedly was a
contract -- Cookware's Limited Lifetime Warranty -- that covers the
alleged defect here," the company's lawyers argue.
"When there is an express contract covering the claim, a plaintiff
cannot invoke the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment. Indeed,
here Lamb does not even allege that she has no adequate remedy at
law. Such pleading failures require dismissal of her unjust
enrichment claim."
The company is represented by Hodgson Russ. Lamb is represented by
Glancy Prongay & Murray of New York and Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group of Tampa, Fla.
"Despite Defendant's representations, however, the Pan fails to
live up to its most basic and fundamental purpose -- to provide
users with a nonstick cooking experience," the complaint says.
"Plaintiff purchased the Pan, reasonably expecting it would provide
for a nonstick cooking experience. Instead, she was immediately
confronted with food that stuck to the Pan, The Pan failed to
perform as promised, undermining the very purpose for which it was
purchased." [GN]
DEFENSE TAX: Bid for Class Certification Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHEN WANG, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEFENSE TAX GROUP
INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-01193-CJC-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order:
1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification; and
2. granting the Plaintiff's request for leave to take
discovery.
The Court said, "The Court is not persuaded that the allegations in
the Plaintiff's Complaint are sufficient to grant class
certification here. After default, the Court accepts as true the
well-pleaded factual allegations in the Complaint, except those
relating to the amount of damages. However, Rule 23 is not merely a
pleading standard -- a party seeking class certification must
affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the Rule by proving the
requirements in fact. The Plaintiff must file any subsequent motion
for class certification by July 13, 2020. Failure to file a motion
by that date will result in dismissal of the Plaintiff's class
claims."
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited, autodialed SMS or
MMS text messages, en masse, to his cellular device and the
cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the
country.[CC]
FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON: Doval Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
---------------------------------------------------
STEVEN DOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-06010 (D.N.J., May 18, 2020) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees for the
Spring 2020 academic semester at Farleigh Dickinson University
("FDU"), and who, because of Defendant's response to the Novel
Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") 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.
According to the complaint, FDU has not held any in-person classes
since March 6, 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 Defendant's facilities, Defendant has
not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or
opportunities that Mr. Doval and the putative class contracted and
paid for. The online learning options being offered to FDU 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 Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid
for.
Nonetheless, FDU has not refunded any tuition or fees for the
Spring 2020 Semester.
Plaintiff seeks, for himself and Class members, Defendant's
disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees,
proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the Spring
Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus services ceased
being provided.
Farleigh Dickinson University is one of New Jersey's largest
private universities with an enrollment of over 11,000 students.
FDU has four campuses: two in New Jersey (Madison/Florham Park and
Teaneck/Hackensack), one in Vancouver, British Columbia, and one in
South East England, as well as an online platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
FAMILY HEALTH: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Frost et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA FROST, JANICE BAKER, and ESCHAR HARTONG, individually and on
behalf all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown,
Plaintiffs, v. FAMILY HEALTH, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a
Michigan for-profit business, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-11202-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 14, 2020) is a civil action
seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to
recover the benefits due to Plaintiffs from Defendant as a result
of Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages to Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees.
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated hourly employees who work
for or worked for Defendant Family Health are entitled to their
back wages for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages in
the amount of those back wages, and attorneys' fees and costs of
this litigation under the FLSA.
Family Health is a Michigan domestic for-profit professional
community health center corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Ste. 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: ebailey@sommerspc.com
crash@sommerspc.com
FARMERS GROUP: Denied Insurance Claims, Pappy's Barber et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAPPY'S BARBER SHOPS, INC. and PAPPY'S BARBER SHOP POWAY, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and FARMERS GROUP, INC.;
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00907-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 14,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract and unfair business practices under the California
Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated policyholders who purchased standard Farmers
commercial property insurance policies, allege that the Defendants
are denying their obligation to pay for business income losses and
other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical
loss and damage to the insureds' property arising from the COVID-19
Civil Authority Orders. The Plaintiffs were forced to close their
business entirely on March 19, 2020 due to the applicable COVID-19
Civil Authority Orders. The insurance policies Farmers issued to
Plaintiffs and other Class members are standard commercial property
polices that cover loss or damage to the covered premises resulting
from all risks other than those expressly excluded. The
interruption of Plaintiffs' and other Class members' businesses was
not caused by any of the exclusions set forth in the applicable
policies thus their business interruption coverage claims are
legitimate and they are entitled for payment.
Pappy's Barber Shops, Inc. is a barber shop with principal place of
business in San Diego, California.
Pappy's Barber Shop Poway, Inc. is a barber shop with principal
place of business in San Diego, California.
Farmers Group, Inc. is an insurance management and holding company
with principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. It is
also doing business as Farmers Underwriters Association.
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. is a property insurance company
with principal place of business in Woodland Hills, California.
Truck Insurance Exchange is an insurance issuer with principal
place of business in Woodland Hills, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amber L. Eck, Esq.
Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
Robert Prine, Esq.
HAEGGQUIST & ECK LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 2050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 342-8000
Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
alreenh@haelaw.com
robertp@haelaw.com
FIRST MERCURY: Raven and The Bow Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case RAVEN AND THE BOW, LLC d/b/a IVY ROOM, Plaintiff, v. FIRST
MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03264 (N.D.
Cal., May 13, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, on
behalf of itself and other California music venues, seeking
declaratory relief, insurance coverage owed under First Mercury's
policy, and damages during the COVID-19 outbreak.
The Plaintiff has complied with all applicable orders of California
state and local authorities to control the spread of COVID-19.
Compliance with those orders has caused direct physical loss of Ivy
Room's insured property in that the property has been made useless
and/or uninhabitable; and its functionality has been severely
reduced if not completely or nearly eliminated.
Plaintiff purchased comprehensive commercial liability and property
insurance from First Mercury Insurance to insure against risks the
business might face. Such coverage includes business income with
extra expense coverage for the loss, as well as additional "civil
authority" coverage.
According to the complaint, on or about March 25, First Mercury
denied Plaintiff's claim for coverage. The Defendant's denial of
coverage breached its obligation and responsibility to provide
coverage available through the policy to Plaintiff due to its
covered loss of business income because its premises are unusable
and uninhabitable and have lost all function. In a cursory denial
letter, First Mercury took the position that Plaintiff's claim "for
business income loss [and/or extra] expense resulting from the
closure of the Premises relating to COVID-19 does not arise out of
direct physical loss or damage to the covered premises due to a
Covered Cause of Loss. To that end, the claim does not indicate
that the Premises was physically damaged in any way."
As a result of Defendant's denial of coverage and breach of the
insurance policy it issued, Plaintiff has suffered and will
continue to suffer damages.
First Mercury Insurance Company is Michigan-based insurance company
with operations in California, including in Alameda County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Andre M. Mura, Esq.
Karen Barth Menzies, Esq.
Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
Steve Lopez, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
amm@classlawgroup.com
kbm@classlawgroup.com
amz@classlawgroup.com
sal@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
Julie Selesnick, Esq.
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
Eric Kafka, Esq.
Karina G. Puttieva, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
vnugent@cohenmilstein.com
jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com
ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Mustang MT82 Transmission
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Foote, writing for Ford Authority, reports that Mustang
owners' qualms with Ford's MT82 six-speed manual transmission are
well-documented across the web. For what could possibly be cost
reasons, Ford ditched the beloved Tremec T5 and TR-3650 manuals in
the base Ford Mustang and Mustang GT for the Getrag Ford MT82 in
the 2011 model year, and many owners have complained about problems
ever since – everything from third gear lockouts to broken shift
forks. So it's not really a surprise that a class action lawsuit
has arisen in association with the Getrag Ford MT82.
Gregorio, et al., v. Ford Motor Company was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, and it
addresses a number of complaints that have persisted for a decade
now. [GN]
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Birnbaum Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma filed an appeal
from the District Court's Opinion and Order, dated May 7, 2020, and
Judgment dated May 8, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Birnbaum
v. General Electric Company, Case No. 19-cv-1013, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages caused by violations of federal securities
laws, as well as other remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
General Electric provides products and services related to energy
production to customers worldwide. General Electric acquired Alstom
Energy for $10.6 billion. Alstom is a French company that
manufactures coal-fueled turbines used by power plants. Alstom had
liabilities of $23.2 billion, including $10.7 billion attributable
to its expected costs needed to fulfill existing contracts with its
customers. At the time GE acquired Alstom, it had a negative book
value of approximately $7.2 billion, accounting for minority
interests that were left in some of the operations. GE decided to
write-off almost all the remaining $23.2 billion, a move that is
under investigation by the SEC and Department of Justice.
After disclosing the said investigation, GE's stock price fell
sharply from a closing price of $11.16 on October 29, 2018, to a
closing price of $10.18, on October 30, 2018 on trading of almost
345 million shares. GE shares traded as low as $9.87 on October 30,
2018.
The appellate case is captioned as Birnbaum v. General Electric
Company, Case No. 20-1741, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Movant-Appellant Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma is
represented by:
Julie Reiser, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 589-2269
E-mail: jreiser@cohenmilstein.com
Defendants-Appellees General Electric Company, et al., are
represented by:
Sarah A. Tomkowiak, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 11th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
E-mail: sarah.tomkowiak@lw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Robinson et al. Sue Over Defective CUE System
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL ROBINSON, RICHARD SCHELLHAMMER, WILLIAM BRADEN, EARL
KLADKE, JOSEPH PALOPOLI, JR., LANA SAVAGE, APRIL BRADLEY, JOHN
TODA, MAXINE GLENN, NICOLE BLANCHARD, GLADYS TUBBS, TONYA GRUCHACZ,
ROBERT TYSON, KATRINA HOWARD, SHEILA CAUTHEN, MARIANO LORENZO
MACAISA, GINI MICHELLE COX, KENDRA PIAZZA, and DAVID CONROE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00663-UNA (D. Del., May 15, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of several states' Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, Consumer Protection Act, the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer, Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the New York
General Business Law, breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased or leased 2013 to 2017
Cadillac ATS, SRX and XTS vehicles and 2014 to 2017 Cadillac CTS,
ELR and Escalade vehicles equipped with the Defendant's "Cadillac
User Experience" (CUE) touch screen display, allege that the
Defendant failed to disclose to the Plaintiffs and Class members
that the Class vehicles have defective CUE systems that do not
function in a safe and reliable manner. The defect causes the CUE
system to spontaneously delaminate, bubble or crack in a
"spider-web" formation. When this happens, the unit ceases to
function properly and is rendered useless. The Defendant has
routinely failed to fully repair the Class vehicles without charge
when the defect manifests. Although the Defendant has known about
the defect for years, instead of fixing it, the Defendant has
continued to sell new Cadillac vehicles with the defective CUE
system to customers. As a result of the concealment and/or
suppression of the facts, the Plaintiffs and the other Class
members sustained damage.
General Motors LLC is a designer, manufacturer, marketer, and
distributor of automobiles, with its principal place of business
located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
apark@bm.net
- and –
Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
- and –
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
James M. Davis, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
jrobinson@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
jdavis@cglaw.com
- and –
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 915-9432
Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
- and –
Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq.
John N. Poulos, Esq.
POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
1305 South Roller Road
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 757-0165
E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com
poulos@pllawfirm.com
- and –
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
- and –
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
STULL, STULL & BRODY
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 687-7230
Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
E-mail: memert@ssbny.com
- and –
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- and –
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
388 Market Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
rmah@zlk.com
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Doe Seeks Fee Refund Over COVID-19 Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01370 (D.
Colo., May 21, 2020), seeks refund of the tuition and fees paid for
the Spring 2020 academic term arising from the Defendants' decision
to shut down its campuses, evict students from campus residence
halls, and switch to online "distance" learning to stop the spread
of COVID-19.
Despite sending students home and closing its campus(es), the
Defendant continues to charge for tuition and fees as if nothing
has changed, continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions
of dollars from students, says the complaint. 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.
The Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the Defendant's actions
he has suffered financial damage. He contends that he and the Class
Members did not receive the full-value of the services paid, did
not receive the benefits of in-person instruction. They have lost
the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss,
and are entitled to recover compensatory damages, trebling where
permitted, and attorney's fees and costs, he adds.
The Plaintiff is enrolled as an MBA graduate student in the
Defendant's McDonough School of Business for the Defendant's Spring
2020 academic term.
Founded in 1789, Georgetown is the nation's oldest Catholic and
Jesuit University. Georgetown is a major international research
university, which includes four undergraduate schools; a school for
continuing studies; graduate schools in the arts and sciences,
nursing and health studies, business, foreign service, and public
policy; and professional schools in law and medicine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glenn Ivey, Esq.
Andrew S. Levetown, Esq.
IVEY & LEVETOWN, LLP
6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 304
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (703) 618-2264
E-mail: ivey@iveylevetown.com
asl@iveylevetown.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
dank@hbsslaw.com
whitneys@hbsslaw.com
GLOBE LIFE: Settlement Evaluation in Joh & Hamilton Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that parties in Joh v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863 and
Hamilton v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No.
4:18-cv-7535-KA, continue to evaluate a settlement.
On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life Insurance Company (American Income) in
California's Contra Costa County Superior Court (Joh v. American
Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863) (Joh Action).
An amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2018. American Income
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-06364-TSH).
A second amended complaint was filed on May 20, 2019. The
plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, are
suing on behalf of all current and former trainees and sales agents
who sold insurance for American Income in the State of California
for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint.
The second amended complaint alleges that such individuals are
employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, and California Private
Attorney General Act.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to
appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses,
misclassification and unfair business practices.
On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against Torchmark Corporation and American Income in California's
Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 18STCV01354) (Golz Action).
American Income removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
2:18-cv-09879 R (SSx)).
An amended complaint was filed on February 5, 2019. On February 6,
2019, Torchmark Corporation was dismissed without prejudice and the
case proceeded with respect to American Income.
On April 2, 2019, the District Court granted American Income's
motion to dismiss four of the five causes of action asserted. The
amended complaint's remaining claim alleges that plaintiff, as an
American Income insurance agent trainee in California, was an
employee who should have been compensated accordingly.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals in
California who trained to contract as American Income agents and
who subsequently worked as contracted agents.
The class period is alleged to begin four years prior to the
complaint's filing.
The complaint seeks restitution under the California Business and
Professions Code for alleged unfair business practices such as
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal
and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses.
On December 14, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Hamilton v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-7535-KAW) (Hamilton Action).
An amended complaint was filed on January 23, 2019. The plaintiffs,
former insurance sales agents of American Income, are suing on
behalf of all current and former trainees and sales agents who sold
insurance for American Income in the State of California for the
last four years prior to the filing of the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are employees and
asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business
and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately
pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and
unfair business practices.
On January 16, 2019, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in Orange County, California Superior Court
(Putros v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No.
30-2019-01044772-CU-OE-CXC) (Putros Action).
An amended complaint was filed on January 22, 2019. The plaintiff,
a former insurance sales agent of American Income, sued on behalf
of all current and former sales agents who sold insurance for
American Income in the State of California for the year prior to
the filing of the complaint.
The lawsuit alleged that American Income sales agents were
employees and asserted claims under the California Private Attorney
General Act.
The complaint sought penalties for failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately
pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse expenses, and misclassification.
The case was dismissed on November 20, 2019.
With respect to the related cases, on August 1, 2019, Plaintiffs in
the Joh and Hamilton Actions jointly moved for preliminary approval
of a settlement of all class and representative claims, which
broadly covers "all individuals who trained to become and/or worked
as sales agents in California for Defendant during the last four
years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in Joh and
whose training and/or work began before the date of preliminary
approval of this Settlement."
Plaintiffs' preliminary motion anticipated that the proposed
settlement would resolve all claims in the Joh and Hamilton
Actions, and in doing so, encompass all pending claims asserted in
the Putros and Golz Actions.
On August 16, 2019, the Northern District of California granted the
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement for
January 9, 2020.
The Court denied final approval of the class settlement but invited
plaintiff's counsel to submit a renewed Motion for Final Settlement
Approval to address certain issues the court had raised during the
final approval hearing.
On February 20, 2020, Plaintiffs in the Joh and Hamilton Actions
filed a renewed Motion for Final Settlement Approval, which the
Court denied on April 15, 2020.
In doing so, the Court noted the need for a more equitable
distribution of the proposed settlement proceeds among class
members. The parties continue to evaluate settlement.
Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation), incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.
GLOBE LIFE: Unit Faces Berry Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that American Income Life
Insurance Company, a company subsidiary, has been named as a
defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Berry, et al v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, et al, Case No.
2:20-cv-00110-LPL.
On February 27, 2020, putative collective action litigation was
filed against American Income Life Insurance Company (American
Income) in United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania (Berry, et al v. American Income Life Insurance
Company, et al, Case No. 2:20-cv-00110-LPL).
The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income,
are pursuing relief on behalf of "all individuals who trained to
become and/or worked as sales agents/insurance producers for
American Income Life Insurance" in the three years prior to the
filing of the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that agent trainees and insurance agents should
have been classified as employees.
It asserts a national collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act seeking compensation for minimum wage, overtime,
expense reimbursement, missed meal and rest breaks, recoupment of
certain commissions and improper recordkeeping.
In addition, the lawsuit asserts a class action under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law seeking similar relief.
Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages and attorney's fees, and
assert an unjust enrichment claim.
Globe Life said, "With respect to the aforementioned litigation, at
this time, management believes that the possibility of a material
judgment adverse to the Company is remote."
Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation), incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.
GOOGLE LLC: Must Face Class Action Over Sharing Search Terms
------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Google LLC
can't avoid a ten-year-old class action claiming that its practice
of sharing users' search terms with certain third-party web hosting
service providers violates the Stored Communications Act, the
Northern District of California said.
Judge Edward J. DaSilva's June 5 ruling denied Google's motion to
dismiss the once resolved lawsuit on the basis that plaintiffs
Paloma Gaos and Rabriel Priyev lack standing.
Google settled the claims for $8.5 million in 2013, but the U.S.
Supreme Court vacated the settlement last year after it concluded
the district court lacked the power to approve the agreement in the
first instance because it never determined whether the plaintiffs
had standing.
According to the order remanding the case, DaSilva needed to
reevaluate the plaintiffs' alleged injury given the Court's
intervening decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, which invalidated
the legal principle the district court primarily relied on in
originally concluding the plaintiffs had suffered constitutionally
recognized injury-in-fact.
In Spokeo, the Supreme Court held that a violation of a legal right
recognized by statute isn't on its own sufficient to establish
standing, and that requirements for concreteness and particularity
must be independently met. Congress can create a legally cognizable
right where one doesn't otherwise exist, the Court said, but the
right must amount to more than a mere procedural protection to give
rise to injury-in-fact for purposes standing.
On remand, DaSilva concluded that the SCA's protections are more
than procedural because the SCA protects an individual's privacy
interests in stored electronic communications and, like other
components of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, provides
for a cause of action for both unlawful access and unlawful
disclosure of protected information.
DaSaliva rejected Google's argument that the SCA provisions at
issue were distinguishable from other ECPA provisions found by
courts post-Spokeo to create substantive rights because the data
shared is not personally identifiable.
DaSilva concluded that plaintiffs also had standing to bring state
law claims, holding that the relevant California law allows
plaintiffs bring claims for legal wrongs, irrespective of actual
loss.
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Gaos and Priyev are represented by Aschenbrener Law, Edelson
McGuire LLC, Nassiri & Jung LLP, KamberLaw, and Dillingham Law
Group. Google is represented by Mayer Brown LLP and O'Melveny Myers
LLP.
The case is In re Goolge Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, N.D.
Cal., No. 10-cv-04809, 6/5/20. [GN]
GRAND CANYON: BARJO Reminds of July 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein,
Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience,
including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON) reminds shareholders
of GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC. (NASDAQGS: LOPE) (the "Company") of
the upcoming July 13, 2020 deadline to petition the court for lead
plaintiff in the pending Class Action lawsuit. Investors who
purchased shares of the Company between January 5, 2018 and January
27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact
the Firm to learn more about their rights as class members and
petitioning the court for lead appointment.
The Class Action, The City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System
v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc., et al., Case No.: 1:20-cv-00639,
was filed in the US District Court for the District of Delaware on
behalf of shareholders seeking damages for alleged violations of
federal securities laws. Specifically, the lawsuit involves the
Company's July 2018 spin-off of its education assets through a sale
to purported non-profit entity, Grand Canyon University ("GCU"),
whereby GCU would operate as a separate, non-profit entity. It is
alleged, however, that in reality, GCU functioned as an
off-balance-sheet entity to which the Company was able to funnel
expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of
revenue, thereby inflating the Company's financial results.
On January 28, 2020, Citron Research published a report concluding
that the Company is the "educational Enron," using a "captive
non-reporting subsidiary" to "dump expenses and liabilities, while
receiving a disproportionate amount of revenue at inflated margins
in order to artificially inflate the stock price." The stock
dropped as much as over 40 percent during the class period.
If you purchased shares of GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC. during the
Class Period and would like to discuss this case, you may, without
obligation or cost, contact attorney Anthony Barbuto, at (888)
715-2520 or via email at anthony@barjolaw.com; and/or attorney Neil
Rothstein via email at neil@barjolaw.com. Shareholders can also
visit the Firm's website at: https://barjolaw.com/case/lope to fill
out the Class Action Inquiry Form.
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
www.barjolaw.com
[GN]
GRAND CANYON: July 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 1 disclosed that class action complaints
have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you
suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc. (LBRT)
The LBRT Lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the documents issued in connection
with the Company's January 2018 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2020
The complaint alleges that during the class period Liberty Oilfield
Services, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was an oversupply in the
hydraulic fracturing services market; (2) the Company's pricing
power was weak; (3) Liberty's services were not increasing and its
competition was not decreasing; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in LBRT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/liberty-oilfield-services-inc-loss-submission-form?id=7022&from=1
Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited (DNK)
Investors affected purchased American Depositary Shares ("ADS") of
Phoenix pursuant and/or traceable to prospectuses and registration
statements issued in connection with the Company's January 2020
initial public offering
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 26, 2020
According to the filed complaint, the documents Phoenix Tree issued
in connection with its initial public offering ("IPO") omitted or
otherwise misrepresented the nature and level of renter complaints
the Company had received before and as of the IPO, as well as the
demand in the Chinese residential rental market and the Company's
exposure to significant adverse developments resulting from the
onset of the coronavirus in China - particularly in Wuhan - at the
time of the IPO. After the IPO, reports emerged indicating that
Phoenix was experiencing ongoing problems due to the coronavirus,
which was causing financial and other harm to tenants.
Learn about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/phoenix-tree-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?id=7022&from=1
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)
Class Period: January 5, 2018 - January 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2020
According to a filed complaint, statements made by Defendants were
false and/or misleading because, following Grand Canyon's spin-off
of its educational assets as Grand Canyon University ("GCU"): (i)
GCU would not be a proper non-profit organization as it would
remain under the control of Grand Canyon, and (ii) Grand Canyon
would not be a third-party service provider to GCU but rather would
continue to effectively operate the entity, and (iii) Grand Canyon
employees served as executives of GCU and (iv) GCU functioned as an
off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon would be able to
funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount
of revenue, thereby inflating Grand Canyon's financial results.
Learn about your recoverable losses in LOPE:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-submission-form?id=7022&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]
GSX TECHEDU: BARJO Reminds of June 16 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein,
Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience,
including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON) reminds investors
that they have until June 16, 2020 to contact the Firm to learn
more about the class action filed against GSX TECHEDU, INC. (NYSE:
GSX), and appointment of Lead Plaintiff.
The Class Action, ZEQIU WU v. GSX TECHEDU INC., et al., Case No.:
2:20-cv-04457, was filed in the US District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of shareholders alleging violations of
federal securities laws. The complaint alleges, in part, that GSX
overstated its profitability, revenue, student enrollment figures,
teacher qualifications, and teacher selection process. Then on
April 14, 2020, Citron Research published a report highlighting
additional allegations, including that GSX's "2019 revenue was
overstated by 70%" and stating that GSX is the "most blatant
Chinese stock fraud since 2011." Most recently, on May 18, 2020,
Muddy Waters Research published a report stating that GSX a
"massive loss-making business" and "is a near-total fraud."
If you purchased shares of GSX anytime after June 6, 2019 and would
like to discuss your options, including petitioning the court for a
leadership position, you may, without obligation or cost, contact
Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520 or via email at
anthony@barjolaw.com; or Neil Rothstein via email at
neil@barjolaw.com. Shareholders can also fill out the Class
Action Inquiry on the Firm's website here:
https://barjolaw.com/case/gsx.
BARJO follows the principles set forth in the case Berger v.
Compaq, 257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir, 2001) which states "[c]lass action
lawsuits are intended to serve as a vehicle for capable, committed
advocates to pursue the goals of the class members through counsel,
not for capable, committed counsel to pursue their own goals
through the class members." BARJO believes strongly that the choice
of qualified Lead Plaintiff(s) can have a significant impact on the
successful outcome of a case.
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
http://www.barjolaw.com
[GN]
GSX TECHEDU: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international securities and
consumer rights litigation firm, is reminding investors of a
federal class action lawsuit pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against GSX Techedu Inc. ("GSX
Techedu" or the "Company") (NYSE: GSX) and the June 16, 2020
deadline to move for lead plaintiff.
If you purchased GSX Techedu shares between June 6, 2019 and April
13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss,
realized or unrealized, you are encouraged to contact attorney
Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312, or at
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com, or to visit the GSX Techedu page on
Scott+Scott's website at
https://scott-scott.com/case/gsx-techedu-inc/.
According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, GSX
Techedu and other named defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that GSX Techedu overstated
its profitability, revenue, student enrollment figures, teacher
qualifications, and teacher selection process. Further, when the
truth was revealed, the Complaint states that the Company's stock
declined, causing shareholders to suffer significant losses and
damages.
What You Can Do
If you purchased GSX Techedu stock between June 6, 2019 and April
13, 2020, inclusive, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, please contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at
(888) 398-9312, or at jzimmerman@scott-scott.com, or to visit the
GSX Techedu page on Scott+Scott's website at
https://scott-scott.com/case/gsx-techedu-inc/. The deadline to move
for lead plaintiff is June 16, 2020.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.
Contact:
Jonathan Zimmerman
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169-1820
Tel: (888) 398-9312
E-mail: jzimmerman@scott-scott.com [GN]
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: July 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 6, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of Hallmark Financial Services,
Inc. ("Hallmark Financial" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HALL)
investors who purchased securities between March 5, 2019 and March
17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period")
If you suffered a loss on your Hallmark Financial investments or
would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover
your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your
contact information
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/hallmark-financial-services-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On March 2, 2020, Hallmark Financial announced that it had decided
to exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business and
reported a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting
years.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.10, or more than
14%, to close at $12.23 per share on March 3, 2020, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
On March 11, 2020, Hallmark Financial disclosed that it had
dismissed its independent auditor, BDO USA, LLP ("BDO"), due to a
disagreement regarding estimates for reserves for unpaid losses,
among other things.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.39, or over 29%, to
close at $5.71 per share on March 12, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On March 17, 2020, Hallmark Financial filed with the SEC a letter
from BDO in which BDO stated "BDO expanded significantly the scope
of its audit on January 31, 2020, with respect to which a
substantial portion of the requests had not been received and/or
tested prior to our termination."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.08, or 2.5%, to
close at $3.12 per share on March 18, 2020.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal controls
over accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for
unpaid losses; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for
reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to
its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; (3) that, as a
result, Hallmark Financial would be forced to report a $63.8
million loss development for prior underwriting years; (4) that, as
a result, Hallmark Financial would exit from its Binding Primary
Commercial Auto business; and (5) 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hallmark Financial
securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later
than July 6, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com
[GN]
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Refused to Pay Dentists for COVID-19 Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT A. LEVY, D.M.D., LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00643-SRC (E.D. Mo., May 14,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract and breach of implied covenant.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other
similarly-situated persons and entities operating dental practices
in Missouri that purchased standard Hartford commercial property
insurance policies, alleges that the Defendant is refusing to
comply with its obligation to pay for business income losses and
covered expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and Class member
policyholders as a result of the physical loss and damage to their
insured property arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff
shut down its practice on March 23, 2020 following the
recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and American
Dental Association to all dentists in the United States to postpone
elective or non-urgent dental procedures to help reduce the risk of
spreading COVID-19. The Plaintiff claims that the COVID-19 pandemic
caused a direct physical loss to its covered property at the
scheduled premises by denying the ability to physically access and
uses the property in the normal fashion in its business. The virus
exclusion on the policy does not apply to the Plaintiff's loss
because it was not caused by the presence of viruses in its
premises. There is no evidence that the virus has ever been in its
premises. The Plaintiff's loss was caused by the worldwide pandemic
and thus entitled to coverage under the insurance provisions.
Robert A. Levy, D.M.D., LLC is a dental clinic based in St. Louis
County, Missouri.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance company
incorporated in Indiana with its principal place of business at One
Hartford Plaza, Hartford. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD LLC
1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-5799
Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
- and –
Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq.
Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
THE BRUNING LAW FIRM LLC
555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 735-8100
Facsimile: (314) 898-3078
E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com
aj@bruninglegal.com
ryan@bruninglegal.com
- and –
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
E-mail: alfredo@aswtlawyers.com
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Denies Claim for COVID-19 Losses, KSD Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KARMEL S. DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW, LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE HARTFORD
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02181-WMR (N.D. Ga., May 21, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants have systematically refused to pay all
their insureds under their Business Income, Extended Business
Income, Business Income from Dependent Properties, and Civil
Authority coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19 and related
civil authority orders, regardless of whether the implicated
insurance policy has a virus exclusion or not.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had long paid for
coverage. When the Plaintiff suffered an actual loss of Business
Income as a result of a covered cause of loss, the Defendants
wrongfully--and in direct contravention of the policy--denied the
Plaintiff's insurance claim.
KSD sought to protect itself--and believed that it had protected
itself--in the event that its operations were suspended or reduced
for reasons outside of its control beyond just damage to the
physical premises, by purchasing an "all-risk" property Spectrum
Business Owner's Policy through the Defendants.
KSD is a law firm that focuses primarily on bankruptcy litigation.
Hartford is a financial holding company for a group of insurance
and non-insurance subsidiaries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
William A. Ladnier, Esq.
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: 865-247-0080
Facsimile: 865-522-0049
E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
will@gregcolemanlaw.com
jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: 917-471-1894
E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
John G. Albanese, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-875-4656
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
jalbanese@bm.net
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone: 919 600-5000
Facsimile: 919 600-5035
E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
pat@whitfieldbryson.com
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Probes Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, has commenced an investigation on behalf of Hebron Technology
Co., Ltd. ("Hebron" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HEBT) investors
concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the
federal securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your Hebron investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases-application/case-information/hebron-technology-co-ltd/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On June 3, 2020, Grizzly Research presented a report alleging that
Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis,"
citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related
party transaction for nearly $26 million.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell as much as $7.29, or
33%, during intraday trading on June 3, 2020.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Hebron should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.
Contact:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/
E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
[GN]
HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla Mining Company (Hecla)
stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Hecla and
certain of its executive officers, one of whom is also a director.
The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8,
2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority
and control of the individual defendants, made certain material
false and misleading statements and omitted certain material
information regarding Hecla's Nevada Operations unit.
The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions
artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during
the class period, thus purportedly harming investors.
A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually
identical claims.
Hecla said, "We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or
estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that
these claims are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.
HERTZ GLOBAL: Falsely Reports Customers for Car Theft, Gider Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandros Gider, a minor, by his mother and natural guardian Roula
Vangelis; Christina Gider, a minor, by her mother and natural
guardian Roula Vangelis; and similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Hertz
Global Holdings Inc.; The Hertz Corporation; Hertz Vehicles LLC;
Julie Wilkerson; Richard W. Livingston; Ken Graeber; Diana Speer;
Scott Funk; Kyle Ebert, Case No. 200501362 (Pa. Com. Pleas,
Philadelphia Cty., May 21, 2020), concerns a serious nationwide
problem with Hertz Rent A Car, which has been serially falsely
reporting customers for car theft.
The Plaintiffs contend that Hertz disregards its own policies and
instructs employees not to perform investigation and verification
of theft report. They add that Hertz routinely uses false payment
information in police reports to make it look like the renter is
refusing to pay.
Hertz already lost a malicious prosecution and intentional
infliction of emotional distress jury trial in 2017 regarding the
very same incident at issue in this case (Case No. 151103380,
before The Honorable Paula Patrick). A punitive damages trial was
later ordered in that case, but the matter resolved prior to the
trial, says the complaint.
Hertz is an American car rental company based in Estero,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francis Alexander, LLC
Francis Malofiy, Esq.
Alfred (AJ) Fluehr, Esq.
280 N. Providence Road, Suite 1
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (215) 500-1000
Facsimile: (215) 500-1005
HOME DEPOT: Golden Appeals E.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Clyde Golden filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Clyde Golden v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-00033-DAD-JLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Fresno.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Bakersfield Division, entered the
Agreed Confidentiality Order in the case.
All materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery,
including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests,
deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly
therefrom, will be subject to the Order concerning Confidential
Information. The Order is subject to the Local Rules of this
District and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on matters of
procedure and calculation of time periods. It governs the named
Plaintiff as well as Defendant Home Depot.
As used in the Order, "Confidential Information" will mean all
non-public material which contains or discloses information
relating to, referencing, or pertaining to: proprietary or
commercially sensitive information that could do harm to the
designating party's business advantage (e.g., marketing documents,
business relationships with other parties and other similar
information); research, technical, commercial or financial
information that the party has maintained as confidential; personal
information, as defined in Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.3, or other
personally sensitive information; information received in
confidence from third parties; and any other material that is
Confidential pursuant to applicable law.
The appellate case is captioned as Clyde Golden v. Home Depot USA,
Inc., Case No. 20-16091, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered on July 6, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be filed by court reporter on August 3,
2020;
-- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on September 11, 2020;
-- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on October 13, 2020; and
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's
brief.[BN]
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Action Moves Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., on June 8 disclosed
that the securities class action lawsuit against Honeywell
International Inc. (NYSE: HON) led by KSF, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Honeywell securities from
February 9, 2018 through October 19, 2018, continues forward in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On May 18, 2020, the New Jersey federal judge presiding over the
case ruled that the plaintiff-investor leading the suit,
represented by KSF, sufficiently alleged that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information regarding its liabilities relating to former
subsidiary Bendix Friction Materials' use of asbestos in certain
automotive products. On June 10, 2020, a conference is scheduled
before the Magistrate Judge to implement a schedule for discovery
in the case.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Honeywell securities from
February 9, 2018 through October 19, 2018 and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/news/complaint-sustainted-in-honeywell-securities-class-action-litigation/
to learn more.
The case is Kanefsky v. Honeywell International Inc. et al.,
2:18-cv-15536.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN]
HOWMET AEROSPACE: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Howmet Aerospace Inc. (formerly known as Arconic Inc.) said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that
the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Howard v. Arconic Inc.
et al., is still pending.
A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconic Inc.
and Klaus Kleinfeld.
A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against Arconic Inc., three former Arconic executives, several
current and former Arconic directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for
Arconic's September 18, 2014 preferred stock offering (the
"Preferred Offering").
The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.
On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.
On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 Arconic and Kleinfeld made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about the Company's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in Arconic's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.
The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.
On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019,
the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full,
dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.
On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading.
The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.
On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint.
Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed by November 1, 2019
and all defendants filed a reply brief on November 26, 2019.
Howmet said, "Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the
uncertainty of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the
possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable
outcome."
Howmet Aerospace Inc., (formerly known as Arconic Inc.) is an
aerospace company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The company
manufactures components for jet engines, fasteners and titanium
structures for aerospace applications, and forged aluminum wheels
for heavy trucks. The company is based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
In February 2019, Arconic Inc. -- to be renamed Howmet Aerospace
Inc.) ("ParentCo" or "Howmet Aerospace") -- announced its plan to
separate into two independent, publicly traded companies. The
separation would occur through a pro rata distribution to the
ParentCo stockholders of 100% of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Arconic Corporation, which was formed to hold the rolled
aluminum products, aluminum extrusions, and architectural products
operations of ParentCo, as well as the Latin America extrusions
operations sold in April 2018. On February 5, 2020, ParentCo's
Board of Directors approved the completion of the separation, which
was scheduled to become effective on April 1, 2020. Arconic Rolled
Products Corporation changed its name to Arconic Corporation.
HUNGRY MAN: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Castaneda Employment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Hungry Man, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Agustin Castaneda v. Hungry Man, Inc., Case No.
2:19-cv-08441-JFW-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest, redress for failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to
maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.
The appellate case is captioned as Agustin Castaneda v. Hungry Man,
Inc., Case No. 20-80085, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent AGUSTIN CASTANEDA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Dale Alan Harris, Esq.
David Covington Garrett, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 N. Central Avenue, 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
Defendant-Petitioner HUNGRY MAN, INC., a New York limited liability
company, is represented by:
Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
E-mail: nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com
spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Hernandez Seeks Refunds Over COVID-19 Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Case No.
1:20-cv-03010 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2020), seeks refunds of the
amount the Plaintiff and other members of a proposed class are owed
on a pro-rata basis stemming from the Defendant's decision to close
campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes
to an online/remote format as a result of COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the complaint, while closing campus and transitioning
to online classes was the right thing for the Defendant to do, this
decision deprived the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
from recognizing 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,
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has either refused to
provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs that
the Defendant is no longer providing, or has provided inadequate
and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss.
The Defendant is an institution of higher learning located in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: roy@akimlawfirm.com
eric@akimlawfirm.com
ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Fees, Thiele Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BAILEY THIELE and JACK MOYLAN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, Case No. 1:20-cv-01197-JES-TSH (C.D. Ill., May 21, 2020),
is brought on behalf of all people, who paid mandatory fees for the
Spring 2020 academic semester at Illinois State University and who,
because of ISUBOT's response and policies relating to the COVID-19
pandemic, lost the benefits of the education and experiential
services for which their mandatory fees were paid, without having
those fees and costs adequately refunded to them.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has refused to provide
proper reimbursement for the portion fees that fund the educational
services, which the Defendant no longer provided as of March 7,
2020. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendant has provided inadequate
and/or arbitrary reimbursement for mandatory student fees that fund
on-campus activities and services that the Defendant is no longer
providing, which does not fully compensate their and members of the
Class for their losses.
As a result, the Defendant's actions have financially damaged the
Plaintiffs and the Class Members, the Plaintiffs allege. The
Plaintiffs bring this action because they did not receive the full
value of the services paid, and they have lost the benefit of their
bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss.
ISU's Spring 2020 semester began on January 13, 2020. In March
2020, ISU President Dietz announced that because of the global
COVID-19 pandemic, all classes would be moved online and conducted
via online distance learning platforms for the remainder of the
Spring 2020 semester. ISU additionally instructed students to move
out of on-campus housing and return to their permanent addresses
for the remainder of the semester.
The Plaintiffs are full-time undergraduate student at ISU.
The Defendant is an entity created by law to act as the governing
board of ISU, with the final authority in all matters affecting
ISU, including exercising jurisdiction over ISU's financial,
educational, and other policies. ISU's principal place of business
is located in Normal, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312 233 1550
Facsimile: 312 233 1560
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
IQIYI INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of Investors of June 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international securities and
consumer rights litigation firm, is reminding investors of a
federal class action lawsuit pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against iQIYI, Inc.
("iQIYI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IQ) and the June 15, 2020
deadline to move for lead plaintiff.
If you purchased iQIYI shares between March 29, 2018 and April 7,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss,
realized or unrealized, you are encouraged to contact attorney
Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312, or at
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com, or to visit the iQIYI page on
Scott+Scott's website at https://scott-scott.com/case/iqiyi-inc/.
According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that iQIYI inflated its revenue figures,
its user numbers, and its expenses to cover up other fraud. When
the truth was revealed, the Company's stock declined, causing
shareholders to suffer significant losses and damages.
What You Can Do
If you purchased iQIYI stock between March 29, 2018 and April 7,
2020, inclusive, or if you have questions about this notice or your
legal rights, please contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888)
398-9312, or at jzimmerman@scott-scott.com, or to visit the iQIYI
page on Scott+Scott's website at
https://scott-scott.com/case/iqiyi-inc/. The deadline to move for
lead plaintiff is June 15, 2020.
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.
Contact:
Jonathan Zimmerman
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169-1820
Tel: (888) 398-9312
E-mail: jzimmerman@scott-scott.com
[GN]
IQIYI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
investors that purchased iQIYI, Inc. (NASDAQ: IQ) American
Depositary Shares ("ADS's") between March 29, 2018 and April 7,
2020 (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased ADS's of iQIYI, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of ADS's of iQIYI, Inc.,
you may, no later than June 15, 2020, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the ADS's of iQIYI, Inc.
On April 7, 2020, Wolfpack Research released a report detailing,
among other things, how iQIYI had misled investors and failed to
disclose pertinent information generally and in its March 2018
initial public offering Registration Statement, including:
iQIYI overstating its user numbers;
iQIYI inflating its revenues;
iQIYI inflating expenses and prices of assets to conceal its
revenue inflation; and
iQIYI issuing misleading financial reporting creating the
appearance of a cash generative company.
On this news, iQIYI's share price fell $0.99 per share over the
rest of the trading day and the next full trading day, or 5.6%, to
close at $16.51 per share on April 8, 2020.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
E-mail: gstone@whafh.com
kcooper@whafh.com
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735
(212) 545-4774
[GN]
JANSSEN BIOTECH: KPH Alleges Abiraterone Acetate Market Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC.; JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC.; JANSSEN
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC; and BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05901 (D.N.J., May 14, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly-situated direct purchasers of Zytiga, a trade name for
the generic drug abiraterone acetate, during the period from
December 13, 2016 until the anticompetitive effects of the
Defendants' conduct cease, alleges that the Defendants engaged in
an unlawful conspiracy to monopolize the market for Zytiga. Janssen
has used its market power to foreclose or otherwise adversely
affect competition in the market for Federal Drug Administration
(FDA)-approved abiraterone acetate drug products by, among other
unlawful tactics, preventing potential competitors from obtaining
samples and active pharmaceutical ingredient supplies, which are
necessary for formulating a generic version of the drug and
concealing information about its 213 patent as a blocking patent
during its application for a second patent to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The existence of 213 patent
caused commercial success of Zytiga because it prevented other drug
companies from making or selling a competing abiraterone acetate
product in the market. This conduct has caused output to be
artificially low, raised competitors' costs, and/or kept the market
price for FDA-approved abiraterone acetate artificially high.
As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members paid more for Zytiga than they
otherwise would have paid in the absence of the Defendants'
unlawful conduct and sustained damages in the form of overcharges
for their Zytiga purchases.
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., also known as Kinney Drugs, Inc., is
a national provider of pharmaceutical and health care services with
its principal place of business at 29 East Main Street, Gouverneur,
New York.
Janssen Biotech, Inc. is a biotechnology company with its principal
place of business at 800/850 Ridgeview Drive, Horsham,
Pennsylvania.
Janssen Oncology, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 10990 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles,
California.
Janssen Research & Development LLC is a pharmaceutical product
development firm with its principal place of business at 920 Route
202 South Raritan, New Jersey.
BTG International Limited is a healthcare company that offers
interventional medicine and specialty pharmaceuticals, with its
principal place of business at 5 Fleet Place, London, EC4M 7RD
United Kingdom. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
TRIEF & OLK
Ted Trief, Esq.
9 Kansas Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 343-5770
Facsimile: (212) 317-2946
E-mail: sfriedland@triefandolk.com
- and –
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 923-9300
Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and –
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM PA
20 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
Telephone: (501) 821-5575
Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us
sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Thalman"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as VINCENT THALMAN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL
SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00730-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying class,
appointing Plaintiff as the class representative, and appointing
Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all
eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the
district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception
applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual
claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to
the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v.
Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling
was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which
refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class
certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
JOE HAAS CONSTRUCTION: Underpays General Laborers, Carter Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN CARTER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOE HAAS CONSTRUCTION & AWS, LLC, a
Tennessee Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00409 (M.D. Tenn., May 14, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful
violation of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a general laborer from
approximately September 2018 until the present.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff was required by Defendant to
routinely work in excess of 40 hours in a work week. However,
Defendant did not compensated Plaintiff at a rate of one and
one-half times his hourly rate of pay for all hours he worked in
excess of 40 hours. Instead, Plaintiff was only paid a flat hourly
rate for all hours worked.
Moreover, Defendant failed to accurately record, report, and/or
preserve records of hours worked by Plaintiff to determine his
wages, hours, and other conditions and practice of employment.
Plaintiff claims that he has suffered a loss of wages. Thus, he
seeks to recover all unpaid working time, an equal amount to the
overtime damages as liquidated damages, all recoverable costs,
expenses, and attorney's fees.
Joe Haas Construction & AWS, LLC is a residential and commercial
construction company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
Emails: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
JOHNS HOPKINS: Class Action Seeks Partial Tuition Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Eichensehr, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports
that a graduate student is suing Johns Hopkins University, seeking
partial tuition reimbursement following the school's move to
online-only instruction due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Elena Botts, a graduate student in the School of Advanced
International Studies at Hopkins, filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court of Maryland on May 29 seeking a partial
refund of the $26,600 she paid in tuition, alleging the online
instruction was not equivalent to the in-person experience she had
paid for. Like most schools across the country, Hopkins decided to
suspend all in-person learning for the second half of the spring
semester due to Covid-19. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Botts
and "all others similarly situated," defined as students and
families who paid full tuition and fees for undergraduate or
graduate programs at Hopkins for the spring 2020 academic
semester.
University representatives were not immediately available to
comment on the lawsuit.
Hopkins announced on March 11 that all its in-person classes would
be conducted online for the remainder of the semester. The lawsuit
claims the announcement, "though necessitated by circumstances,
effectively breached or terminated the contract Johns Hopkins had
with each and every student and tuition provider, who had paid for
the opportunity to participate in academic life on Johns Hopkins's
campus." It further alleges that by canceling in-person learning,
Hopkins could not deliver on the promised educational services,
facilities, access and opportunities that Botts and other students
had expected in exchange for their tuition dollars.
John Soumilas, a lawyer representing Botts, said the suit falls
into a much broader category of Covid-related lawsuits being
brought nationwide, many of them claiming that businesses of
various types -- including gyms, airlines and concert and event
venues -- weren't able to deliver the services they promised due to
the pandemic and did not issue satisfactory refunds to affected
customers. Hopkins has already delivered refunds to students and
their families for charges relating to on-campus services like
housing and dining, to the tune of about $12 million, but Soumilas
said those returns did not go far enough.
"This is about the quality of the education that was delivered,"
Soumilas said. "I, personally, still remember a major major part of
the learning experience was meeting with professors after class and
talking with fellow students, collaborating about a paper or
project. That's part of the richness of the college experience that
all of us who have gone to college know, and that Hopkins knows."
The lawsuit argues that Hopkins "typically charges far less for
online education than in person, in recognition of the fact that
online classes cannot replicate the full academic opportunities of
in-person instruction." Tuition prices for online programs at Johns
Hopkins vary greatly between different programs. The lawsuit claims
the School of Advanced International Studies charges $62,500 in
tuition for one year of the two-year MBA program in which Botts was
enrolled, but only $41,175 for the equivalent credits for its
online program.
The suit also claims Hopkins violated the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act "by falsely representing...that online education has
the same value as in-person education."
Notably, Hopkins' student government association previously penned
a letter to the university's president and board chair, requesting
a 25% refund of students' tuition fees due to the online learning
migration.
Botts had requested a partial refund, but has yet to receive it.
Through the suit, she is seeking a reimbursement proportionate to
the amount of time that remained in the spring semester when
classes moved online, to account "for the diminished value of
online learning."
Lawyers representing Botts in the suit include Washington, D.C.,
attorney Courtney L. Weiner, Philadelphia-based Francis Mailman
Soumilas P.C., and New York-based Mallon Consumer Law Group PLLC.
Hopkins is the latest of several institution across the country to
face similar lawsuits from students and families who believe they
did not get their money's worth when schools collectively
transitioned to online-only learning models during the spring
semester.
So far, one other such lawsuit has come to light in Maryland. Two
parents from New Jersey, each with children who attended a college
in Maryland, filed a class action suit against the University
System of Maryland, specifically citing University of Maryland,
College Park and Towson University. According to documents from the
New Jersey Judiciary Court System, they are seeking partial tuition
reimbursement, claiming the online learning which their children
had to participate in during the spring semester was not equal to
the college experience they paid for. The lawsuit is a class
action, and could apply to other families who feel similarly. [GN]
JUUL LABS: Promotes eCigarettes to Minors, School Districts Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEORIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT 150, HALL TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT 502 MARION COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, and LA MOILLE
COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 303, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JUUL LABS, INC.;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; NU MARK INNOVATIONS, LTD.;
IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC.; RJ REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY; REYNOLDS AMERICAN,
INC.; LOEC, INC.; LORILLARD, LLC.; FONTEM VENTURES B.V.; FONTEM
U.S.; BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO P.L.C., INC.; WALGREEN CO.; and ABC
CORPORATIONS 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03321 (N.D. Cal.,
May 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for public
nuisance, civil conspiracy, violation of the Consumer Fraud &
Deceptive Practices Act, breach of implied warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, negligence, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated school districts in the State of Illinois,
allege that the Defendants are engaged in a massive conspiracy to
market their e-cigarette products to minors and drastically expand
the market for such unlawful purchase. By illegally and deceptively
promoting e-cigarettes directly, through their control of third
parties, and by acting in concert with third parties, the
Defendants made misstatements that omitted or concealed material
facts to promote the sale and use of e-cigarettes to Illinois
school children. The Defendants and their third-party allies
repeatedly failed to disclose or minimized material facts about the
risks of e-cigarettes, including the risk of addiction. The
Defendants have profited and benefited from the increase in the
distribution and purchase of e-cigarettes within the Plaintiffs'
Community, including from e-cigarettes marketed to school children.
The Plaintiffs were injured in the Defendants' marketing of
e-cigarettes as it caused a number of school children to become
addicted to their products and the Plaintiffs are forced to address
the nuisance proximately caused and reasonably foreseeable by the
Defendants.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as PAX Labs, Inc., is a
manufacturer of e-cigarette products, having its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer and marketer of tobacco,
cigarettes and related products, headquartered in Henrico County,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services, Inc. is a New York corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. with its principal
place of business in Henrico County, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Altria Group, Inc. with its principal place of business in Henrico
County, Virginia.
Nu Mark LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc.,
with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Nu Mark Innovations, Ltd. is a provider of digital marketing and
customer care services for Nu Mark LLC and Altria's e-vapor
brands.
Imperial Brands PLC is a cigarette company with its principal place
of business in Bristol, England.
RJ Reynolds Vapor Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reynolds
American, with its principal place of business in Winston-Salem,
North Carolina. It has manufactured, designed, sold, marketed,
promoted, and distributed Vuse e-cigarettes.
Reynolds American, Inc. is a tobacco company with a principal place
of business in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
LOEC, Inc. is a Charlotte, North Carolina-based manufacturer,
designer, marketer, promoter, and distributor of blu e-cigarettes.
Lorillard, LLC is a manufacturer of cigarettes with its principal
place of business in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Fontem Ventures B.V. is a manufacturer, designer, seller, marketer,
promoter, and distributor of blu e-cigarettes, with its principal
place of business in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Fontem U.S., Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Imperial Brands,
with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.
It has manufactured, designed, sold, marketed, promoted, and
distributed blu e-cigarettes.
British American Tobacco P.L.C., Inc. is a cigarette manufacturer
based in London, England.
Walgreen Co. is an Illinois-based subsidiary of Walgreens Boots
Alliance that operates retail drug stores. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
Melissa K. Sims, Esq.
SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 741-5600
Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
E-mail: rkassan@thesandersfirm.com
L BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ohio Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
L Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio remains pending.
In July 2019, a plaintiff shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio alleging that the Company made false and/or misleading
statements relating to the November 2018 announcement that the
Company was reducing its quarterly dividend.
In September 2019, a different plaintiff shareholder filed a second
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio containing substantially the same
allegations and seeking substantially the same relief.
In October 2019, the Court issued an order consolidating the two
putative class actions, appointing a lead plaintiff, and approving
that lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
December 20, 2019 that asserted substantially the same allegations
and sought substantially the same relief as the initial complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on February 18, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on May 4, 2020, and
the Company filed a reply brief in further support of its motion to
dismiss on June 3, 2020.
The Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
is now fully briefed and pending before the court.
The Company views this lawsuit as meritless and intends to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously.
L Brands, Inc. sells women's apparel and beauty products. The
Company offers various products including women's apparel, women's
lingerie, beauty and personal care products, home fragrances, and
other related products and accessories. L Brands serves customers
in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom through
specialty retail stores, websites, and catalogues. The company is
based in Columbus, Ohio.
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Unlawfully Collects Pay-to-Pay Fees, Brown Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMALLA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC and
LOANCARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00280-FDW-DSC
(W.D.N.C., May 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, the North
Carolina Mortgage Debt Collection and Servicing Act, and the North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached its contracts
with the Plaintiff and the Class members and violated debt
collection laws after collecting pay-to-pay fees as part of
mortgage loan payment transactions. Each time a mortgage borrower
whose loan is serviced and/or subserviced by the Defendants makes a
payment over the phone or online, the Defendants charge the
borrower a pay-to-pay fee of $15.00 for payment over the telephone,
$12.00 for IVR payment and $10.00 for online payment. Defendant
LoanCare collects these pay-to-pay fees at Defendant Lakeview's
direction, and both Defendants share in the profits. Moreover, the
mortgages of the Plaintiff and the purported classes that
Defendants service and/or subservice are Uniform Mortgages; that
is, they are FHA and/or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Uniform Instruments
used when originating Single-Family residential mortgage loans. The
Uniform Mortgages of Defendants' customers do not authorize
Defendants to charge pay-to-pay fees. At most, the mortgage uniform
covenants allow the Defendants to pass along only the actual cost
of fees incurred by it to the borrower.
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage-loan servicer with its
principal place of business located at 4425 Ponce de Leon
Boulevard, 5th Floor, Coral Gables, Florida.
LoanCare, LLC is a mortgage loan sub servicer with its principal
place of business located at 3637 Sentara Way, Virginia Beach,
Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Stacy Miller II, Esq.
Gavin A. Bell, Esq.
MILLER LAW GROUP, PLLC
2424 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27608
Telephone: (919) 348-4361
Facsimile: (919) 729-2953
E-mail: Stacy@MillerLawGroupNC.com
gavin@MillerLawGroupNC.com
- and –
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
- and –
Victor S. Woods, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: 304-345-6555
Facsimile: 304-342-1110
E-mail: vwoods@baileyglasser.com
LANNETT CO: Settlement of Suit Over JSP Distribution Deal Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court overseeing
the class action suit related to the possible renewal of the Jerome
Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JSP) Distribution Agreement, has
granted final approval of the settlement and dismissed all claims
with prejudice.
In October 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer
damaged the purported class by making false and misleading
statements in connection with the possible renewal of the Jerome
Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JSP) Distribution Agreement.
In December 2018, counsel for the putative class filed an amended
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in
January 2019. In March 2019, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the Company's motion to dismiss. In May 2019, the Company
filed an answer to the amended complaint.
During May and June 2019, the parties negotiated a proposed
settlement and agreed to settle the litigation, by which the
Company agreed to pay the sum of $300,000 without an admission of
liability and subject to the negotiation of the terms of a
stipulation of settlement and approval by the Court.
In July 2019, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and on July 31,
2019, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and scheduling
a hearing for final approval of the settlement for February 7,
2020.
In January 2020, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for
final approval of the proposed settlement and a motion for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses.
On February 7, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the motions filed
on behalf of the putative class. The same day, the Court issued an
order granting both motions, entering judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and the settlement class consistent with the settlement
agreement, and dismissing all claims with prejudice.
Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
LLOYD'S LONDON: Refuses Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, IRG Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
INDEPENDENCE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a INDEPENDENCE BEER GARDEN
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CERTAIN
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, Case No. 2:20-cv-02365-CFK (E.D.
Pa., May 20, 2020), seeks declaratory relief arising from the
Plaintiff and Class Members' contracts of insurance with the
Defendant.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has refused to cover
business interruption losses for all businesses it insures in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in contravention of the uniform
language contained in the insurance policies it has issued to those
businesses.
The Plaintiff and Class Members' insurance policies with the
Defendant are "All Risk" policies, which provide coverage for all
non-excluded business losses, and thus provide coverage, says the
complaint.
In light of the global COVID-19 pandemic and orders issued by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and local governments within the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania mandating that all non-essential
in-store businesses must shut down, businesses, including to the
Plaintiff's business, have suffered significant business losses. As
a result, the Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
declaratory relief that their businesses are covered for all
business losses to the extent of all applicable coverage limits
under their policies with the Defendant.
IRG owns, operates, manages, and/or controls Independence Beer
Garden, which is located at 100 S. Independence Mall W, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Lloyd's, an insurance carrier headquartered at One Lime Street,
London, provides business interruption and related insurance
coverage to Plaintiff and Class members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Daniel J. Mann, Esq.
Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
Andrew K. Mitnick, Esq.
Bethany R. Nikitenko, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
dmann@feldmanshepherd.com
egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com
amitnick@feldmanshepherd.com
bnikitenko@feldmanshepherd.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Sues Over Illegal Processing Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Donna Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LoanCare, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-21837 (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2020), seeks relief for violations
of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act including for breach of
contract and for unjust enrichment.
LoanCare is a mortgage servicer specializing in high-risk,
high-interest residential loans. Alvarez owns a house in Riverview,
Florida subject to a mortgage serviced by LoanCare acting as the
sub-servicer for loans serviced by Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC.
Alvarez claims that LoanCare charges certain fees for mortgage
payments made by phone or internet. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ FIRM, PLLC
2 Alahambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 740-1423
Fax: (786) 298-5737
Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
barbara@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
LYFT INC: Cunningham Appeals Order in Employment Suit to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Melody Cunningham, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11974-IT, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law and
the Massachusetts Overtime Law.
Lyft is a car service that can be hailed and dispatched through a
mobile phone application to transport riders. Melody Cunningham is
a Lyft driver, who claims to be misclassified as an independent
contractor, thus, denied minimum wages for all hours worked and
overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week. She was also required to pay business expenses including but
not limited to the cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas,
insurance, phone and data expenses and other costs.
The appellate case is captioned as Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1549, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appearance form is due on June 17, 2020;
-- Docketing Statement is due on June 17, 2020; and
-- Transcript Report/Order form is due on June 17, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees MELODY CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; and FRUNWI MANCHO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, VLADMIMIR LEONIDAS,
and MARTIN EL KOUSSA are represented by:
Anastasia Doherty, Esq.
Anne R. Kramer, Esq.
Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: adoherty@llrlaw.com
akramer@llrlaw.com
sliss@llrlaw.com
apagano@llrlaw.com
- and -
Karla E. Zarbo, Esq.
MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
1 Ashburton Pl
Boston, MA 02108-0000
Telephone: (617) 727-2200
Defendants-Appellants LYFT, INC., LOGAN GREEN and JOHN ZIMMER are
represented by:
Benjamin G. Barokh, Esq.
Jeffrey Y. Wu, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 S Grand Ave., 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
E-mail: Benjamin.Barokh@mto.com
Jeffrey.Wu@mto.com
- and -
Adele M. El-Khouri, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
1155 F St. NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 220-1100
E-mail: Adele.El-Khouri@mto.com
- and -
Michael T. Maroney, Esq.
David J. Santeusanio, Esq.
Andrew E. Silvia, Esq.
James D. Smeallie, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
10 Saint James Ave., 11th Floor
Boston, MA 02116-0000
Telephone: (617) 523-2700
E-mail: michael.maroney@hklaw.com
david.santeusanio@HKLAW.com
Andrew.Silvia@hklaw.com
jd.smeallie@hklaw.com
- and -
Justin P. Raphael, Esq.
Rohit Singla, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission St., 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
Telephone: (415) 512-4085
E-mail: Justin.Raphael@mto.com
rohit.singla@mto.com
LYFT INC: First Cir. Appeal Filed in Cunningham Employment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Melody Cunningham, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11974-IT, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law and
the Massachusetts Overtime Law.
Lyft is a car service that can be hailed and dispatched through a
mobile phone application to transport riders. Melody Cunningham is
a Lyft driver, who claims to be misclassified as an independent
contractor, thus, denied minimum wages for all hours worked and
overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week. She was also required to pay business expenses including but
not limited to the cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas,
insurance, phone and data expenses and other costs.
The appellate case is captioned as Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1544, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appearance form is due on June 17, 2020;
-- Docketing Statement is due on June 17, 2020; and
-- Transcript Report/Order form is due on June 17, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees MELODY CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; and FRUNWI MANCHO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, MARTIN EL KOUSSA,
and VLADMIMIR LEONIDAS are represented by:
Anastasia Doherty, Esq.
Anne R. Kramer, Esq.
Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: adoherty@llrlaw.com
akramer@llrlaw.com
sliss@llrlaw.com
apagano@llrlaw.com
- and -
Karla E. Zarbo, Esq.
MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
1 Ashburton Pl.
Boston, MA 02108-0000
Telephone: (617) 727-2200
Defendants-Appellants LYFT, INC., LOGAN GREEN and JOHN ZIMMER are
represented by:
Benjamin G. Barokh, Esq.
Jeffrey Y. Wu, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 S Grand Ave., 50th Flr.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
E-mail: Benjamin.Barokh@mto.com
Jeffrey.Wu@mto.com
- and -
Adele M. El-Khouri, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
1155 F St. NW, 7th Flr.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 220-1100
E-mail: Adele.El-Khouri@mto.com
- and -
Michael T. Maroney, Esq.
David J. Santeusanio, Esq.
Andrew E. Silvia, Esq.
James D. Smeallie, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
10 Saint James Ave., 11th Flr.
Boston, MA 02116-0000
Telephone: (617) 523-2700
E-mail: michael.maroney@hklaw.com
david.santeusanio@HKLAW.com
Andrew.Silvia@hklaw.com
jd.smeallie@hklaw.com
- and -
Justin P. Raphael, Esq.
Rohit Singla, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission St., 27th Flr.
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
Telephone: (415) 512-4085
E-mail: Justin.Raphael@mto.com
rohit.singla@mto.com
MAINE: Businesses File Class Action v. Governor Over Quarantine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Keithley, writing for WMTW, reports that more than 1,000
businesses have joined a class-action lawsuit against Gov. Janet
Mills over the 14-day quarantine requirement for out-of-state
visitors, claiming it has done irreparable damage to their
businesses.
The plaintiffs said the governor's reopening plan makes no sense,
especially not allowing restaurant dining rooms in Cumberland, York
and Androscoggin counties to reopen.
Those counties are still reporting community transmission of
COVID-19, according to the Maine CDC.
Willow's Pizza in South Portland has been in business for 31 years
and is still open for takeout, but its owner says he may not
survive this downturn.
"What we're doing here is not enough to sustain the business
year-round. It's not going to cut the mustard," said Willow's owner
Dave Lengyel.
Meanwhile, Ray Richardson, a leader in the group "Standing Up For
Maine," went further, calling Gov. Mills a dictator.
"We believe one-person government is dangerous. Janet Mills, the
governor of Maine, is creating laws and then she is enforcing them.
That's what a dictator does," Richardson said.
The group said they are still moving forward with the lawsuit
despite Mills relaxing the 14-day quarantine requirement in favor
of visitors proving they have tested negative for COVID-19.
Mills said during the June 8 briefing it is simply not safe to
reopen dining rooms in Cumberland, York and Androscogin Counties
just yet. [GN]
MEN OF STEEL: Goundry Seeks Unpaid Wages for Construction Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEJANDRO GOUNDRY, BREITNER TARRILLO MEDINA, DAVID
SERRANO, EDISON DANIEL TORRES CABELLO, FERMIN ARZOLA SILVA, ALEX
NASIPUCHA, CRISTIAN F LUCERO YUNGANAULA, EDISON FABIAN BECERRA
CABRERA, HARRISON MARCIAL LEONARDO, HENRY VENEGAS, ISRAEL PEREZ,
JAIRO PEREZ, JORGE LUIS QUEZADA LEON, JUAN PABLO LITUMA MOROCHO,
LUIS J. OLORTEGUI COLLAS, NELSON MAURICIO GUERRERO MARROQUIN, PABLO
CAMPOS ESPINAL, and VICTOR CAIVINAGUA CAIVINAGUA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. MEN OF STEEL
ENTERPRISES LLC (D/B/A MEN OF STEEL ENTERPRISES); VOGEL DEVELOPMENT
LLC; MEN OF STEEL REBAR FABRICATORS LLC (D/B/A MEN OF STEEL REBAR
FABRICATORS); EMPIRE STATE REBAR INSTALL, LLC; ROBERT VOGELBACHER;
MARIO DOE; FABIAN BRAVO; and RICARDO ACOSTA, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05907 (D.N.J., May 14, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-related
construction workers accurate minimum wages and overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week and
for failure to provide accurate statement of wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor and Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law,
the New York Labor Law, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants in 2019 as iron
workers, steel workers, rebar workers and construction workers at
the New Jersey business and/or the Pennsylvania business
location(s).
Men of Steel Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Men of Steel
Enterprises, is a construction business owner and operator with its
primary place of business located at 2039 US-130, Roebling, New
Jersey.
Vogel Development, LLC is a construction company based in Bensalem,
Pennsylvania.
Men of Steel Rebar Fabricators, LLC, doing business as Men of Steel
Rebar Fabricators, is a construction business owner and operator
with its primary place of business located at 555 State Road, Suite
101, Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
Empire State Rebar Install, LLC is a contruction firm that
maintains its principal place of business at 555 State Road, Suite
101, Bensalem, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jordan Gottheim, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES PC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Guan Sues Over Defect in Camshaft Adjusters
--------------------------------------------------------------
YING YING GUAN, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584498 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., May 20, 2020), is brought against
Mercedes-Benz on behalf of a class of California residents, who
purchased either a new or a Mercedes-Benz Certified Pre-Owned
2012-2014 model year Mercedes-Benz C250 vehicle.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendant Mercedes-Benz wrongfully and
intentionally concealed a latent defect in the camshaft adjusters
of the Subject Vehicles, which causes the camshaft adjusters to
fail prematurely, forcing him and members of the Class to incur
substantial out of pocket costs to replace the damaged camshaft
adjusters and attendant engine parts.
Because of this, the camshaft adjuster defect presents a
significant safety risk for the Plaintiff and members of the Class.
If either of the camshaft adjusters completely fail, the vehicle
loses engine power, which causes a loss in the ability to
accelerate and maintain speed. The drivers and occupants of the
Subject Vehicles are at risk for rear-end collisions and other
accidents, says the complaint.
Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for passenger cars of Daimler AG
in the United States located in Sandy Springs, Georgia, USA. The
Company is a subsidiary of Daimler AG and today sells cars from the
Mercedes-Benz and Smart brands, as well as the Mercedes-Benz
Transporter.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot Conn, Esq.
CONN LAW, PC
354 Pine Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 417-2780
Facsimile: (415) 358-4941
- and -
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, No. 105
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
MIDLAND CREDIT: Must Face New Jersey FDCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Midland
Credit Management Inc. must defend class allegations that it sent
misleading collection letters to New Jersey debtors in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, according to a ruling by
the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.
Judge Madeline Cox Arleo's the June 5 opinion certified a class
consisting of people in New Jersey who received Midland collection
letters between July 2015 and April 2016 that contained the
statement: "We will report forgiveness of debt as required by IRS
regulations. Reporting is not required every time a debt is
canceled or settled, and might not be required in your case." [GN]
MITAC DIGITAL: Livingston Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CPT Group, Inc. on June 8 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily
approved a proposed settlement in Livingston v. MiTAC Digital
Corporation, No. 4:18-cv-05993-JST, a class action alleging that
Defendant MiTAC Digital Corporation ("Defendant" or "Magellan")
misled Class Members to believe that their Magellan RoadMate
Navigators would receive free lifetime updates, when in fact
Defendant allegedly required Class Members to purchase updates.
Defendant denies these allegations, denies that it has acted
improperly or wrongfully in any way, and believes that the lawsuit
has no merit. The Court has not decided who is right.
If you purchased a Magellan RoadMate Navigator with Free Lifetime
Map Updates on or after September 28, 2014 and before June 30,
2019, and you would like to receive free map data updates, you must
register your lifetime map subscription by September 17, 2020. You
can register and renew on Magellan's website at
https://www.magellangps.com/support/livingston-registration or have
a registration or a renewal form mailed to you by contacting
Magellan's customer support team at
https://service.magellangps.com.
Magellan will reimburse customers with free lifetime map
subscriptions for verified purchases of map updates and for other
incurred expenses relating to the lifetime map subscription, plus
interest. This offer is available to customers who have purchased a
Magellan RoadMate Navigator with Free Lifetime Map Updates on or
after September 28, 2014 and before June 30, 2019. To submit a
claim for reimbursement, complete the Reimbursement Form at
www.MagellanRoadMateSettlement.com.
Magellan will update its website, marketing, and packaging of
RoadMate Navigators with Free Lifetime Map Updates to state clearly
the terms and conditions as provided in the FAQ, posted to
Magellan's website on June 18, 2018, or advise potential purchasers
where they can read the terms and conditions.
If you are experiencing any difficulties in obtaining a free map
update for your RoadMate Navigator with Free Lifetime Map Updates,
please contact Magellan's customer support team at
https://service.magellangps.com.
If you do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will remain a
member of the Class, you will be eligible for the benefits provided
by the settlement, you will be bound by the settlement, and you
will give up the claims that are released by the settlement.
You may exclude yourself from the Class by completing the Exclusion
Form online at www.MagellanRoadMateSettlement.com on or before
August 18, 2020.
You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection by
August 18, 2020. If the Court denies approval, no settlement
payments will be sent out and the lawsuit will continue.
This is only a summary. For the precise terms and conditions of the
settlement, please see the settlement agreement available at
www.MagellanRoadMateSettlement.com.
Contact:
CPT Group, Inc.
Livingston v. MiTAC Digital Corporation Settlement Administrator
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, Calif. 92606
1-888-416-0917
http://www.cptgroup.com
[GN]
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Otzelberger Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANA OTZELBERGER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00728-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
NEBRASKA: Class Action Status Denied in Suit v. Corrections Dept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hammel, writing for Omaha World-Herald, reports that a federal
judge has dealt a major blow to a civil rights group's attempt to
force action to relieve chronic overcrowding in the Nebraska prison
system.
In a ruling on June 8, U.S. District Judge Brian Buescher denied
class-action status to the ACLU of Nebraska in its lawsuit against
the Nebraska Department of Corrections, and stated that having a
federal judge order improvements in health care and reductions in
the use of solitary confinement "would be contrary to the idea of
federalism."
"The Nebraska prison system is operated by the State of Nebraska
not the federal government and certainly not by the federal
courts," the judge wrote in a 124-page ruling. "Although this court
stands ready to defend the civil rights (of) inmates . . . it will
not exercise its authority to promote public policy preferences
that should be debated, funded, and if enacted, implemented through
. . . the State of Nebraska."
The ACLU, in a statement, acknowledged that the ruling was a
"setback," but said its efforts to seek systemic improvements in
the care and treatment of Nebraska prison inmates won't stop.
"Nebraska's prison system is in crisis and remains the second most
overcrowded in the country. It is rife with racial disparities that
can't be underemphasized in this moment. This ruling doesn't change
that," said David Fathi, the director of the ACLU's National Prison
Project and the lead attorney in the lawsuit.
The Nebraska Attorney General's Office, which represented the
Corrections Department, said in a statement on June 8 that it was
pleased with the ruling, which will dramatically decrease the cost
of the litigation.
The ACLU filed its federal lawsuit in August 2017, after months of
threats to do so. It claimed that overcrowding and understaffing in
Nebraska's prison system had led to inadequate health care and
mental health care, as well as overutilization of solitary
confinement, which can exacerbate mental illness and behavioral
problems.
Among the 11 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit was an inmate who
spent most of a five-year sentence in solitary confinement with
only an hour outside his cell each day, worsening suicidal
tendencies and mental illnesses; a deaf prisoner who said the lack
of an interpreter led to a dentist installing a crown against his
wishes; and other inmates who complained of painful delays in
surgeries and dental care.
Nebraska's prisons now hold about 2,100 more inmates than their
design capacity, and have been overcrowded for more than a decade
despite some recent efforts to reform sentences and build
additional cells.
On July 1, a state law will force Gov. Pete Ricketts to declare a
prison overcrowding "emergency," which will direct the State Board
of Parole to begin reviewing hundreds of parole-eligible inmates
for release. But Ricketts and prison officials have maintained that
the emergency won't result in the freeing of any inmates, unless
they are deemed safe for release into society.
Buescher, whose appointment to the federal bench was confirmed 11
months ago, said the lawsuit didn't rise to the level of becoming a
class action on behalf of all 5,600 Nebraska prison inmates because
the health care needs of prisoners "run the gamut" from no needs to
serious medical issues.
"The alleged deficiencies in the (state prisons') health-care
system are likewise diverse, broad and would require individualized
rather than classwide application," the judge ruled.
Buescher, citing past decisions in the Eighth Circuit, also ruled
that it wasn't the role of federal courts to "undertake overseeing
the management of nearly all aspects of the state prison system,"
but the job of the executive and legislative branches of Nebraska's
state government.
The ACLU has gone to court in several states, alleging
unconstitutional treatment and care of inmates. In California and
some other states, the organization has been successful in forcing
changes via litigation.
The ACLU said that Nebraska's prison system has a disproportionate
impact on people of color and those with mental health diagnoses.
More than 1 in 4 inmates are black, even though just 5% of
Nebraskans are African American, and 82% of state inmates have
mental health or substance abuse disorders, or both. [GN]
NEW YORK TEACHERS: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Pellegrino Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Scott Pellegrino and Christine Vanostrand filed an
appeal from the District Court Judgment issued on May 1, 2020, in
the lawsuit styled Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers,
Case No. 18-cv-3439, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs are
public-school teachers who bring this class action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, seeking re-dress for
the Defendants' past and ongoing violations of their
constitutionally protected rights.
New York State United Teachers is a 600,000-member New York state
teachers union, affiliated since 2006 with the American Federation
of Teachers, the AFL-CIO, and the National Education Association.
The appellate case is captioned as Pellegrino v. New York State
United Teachers, Case No. 20-1705, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Scott Pellegrino and Christine VanOstrand, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law
Defendants-Appellees New York State United Teachers, et al., are
represented by:
Michael James Del Piano, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS
52 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 228-3382
E-mail: mdelpian@nysutmail.org
- and -
Dina Kolker, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-5606
E-mail: dkolker@stroock.com
- and -
David Ferdinand Kwee, Esq.
INGERMAN SMITH, LLP
150 Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 261-8834
E-mail: dkwee@ingermansmith.com
- and -
David Lawrence, III, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 416-8023
Facsimile: (212) 416-8962
E-mail: david.lawrence@ag.ny.gov
NEWMARK WOOD: Cespedes Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Antonio Zuniga Cespedes, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. NEWMARK WOOD WORKING GROUP INC. (D/B/A
NEWMARK FURNITURE ) and RON MARKS, Case No. 1:20-cv-02464
(E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2020), is brought for unpaid wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the New
York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
without appropriate compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for
any hours worked at the straight rate of pay. Furthermore, the
Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely
basis.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff to work without providing the compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Zuniga was employed as a master craftsman at the
furniture factory.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a furniture factory,
located in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Newmark
Furniture."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
NUSR-ET STEAKHOUSE: Workers' FLSA Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
Connie Ogle, writing for Miami Herald, reports that Salt Bae won a
class action lawsuit filed against him by his employees.
A federal judge ruled in favor of international and controversial
Turkish restaurateur Nusret Gokce in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, according to the Daily Business
Review-Law.com. Gokce is famous for seasoning his high-end steaks
with a flick of his wrist in Internet videos.
The case's lead plaintiff Melissa Compere, a server at Nusr-Et
Steakhouse in Brickell, said the restaurant illegally shared her
tips with workers whose jobs didn't rely on gratuities.
According to the Florida Fair Labor Standards Act, Nusr-et is
allowed to charge a service charge to recoup losses (such as broken
dishes) before splitting the money with workers. But if the bill
comes with a separate line for tips, that money must go directly to
workers whose salary is dependent on tips. Compere said the
restaurant lumped those tips and the service charge into the pool
that went to all employees.
The suit hinged on whether the 18 percent service charge on a bill
at the Brickell steakhouse was considered solely a tip for the
server. U.S. District Court Judge Raag Singhal said it was not and
ruled in the restaurant's favor.
Gokce, who opened Nusr-et Steakhouse more than 10 years ago in
Turkey and now has 10 locations in cities including Istanbul, Abu
Dhabi and Dubai, has been at the center of several controversies.
He hosted and fawned over Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro in
the middle of that country's food crisis in a video since deleted
from Instragram, which lead to protests outside his Miami
restaurant.
He had previously angered many Miami residents when a photo of him
dressed as Fidel Castro surfaced on Instagram. The English
translation of his comment, according to Google Translate, was
"They said you started a revolution, too."
More recently, his Brickell restaurant was involved in a complaint
from a customer who disputed a $5,000 bill for gold-wrapped steaks.
[GN]
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Bid to Dismiss Stirling Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO, is pending.
On September 17, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, Mark Butler (then serving as the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors),
Jay Stasz (the Company's Chief Financial Officer), and John Swygert
(then serving as the Company's Chief Operational Officer).
The complaint alleges that, in public statements between June 6,
2019, and August 28, 2019, the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information about the Company's earnings, projections, supply
chain, and inventory.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On December 5, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs Bernard L.
Maloney and Nathan Severe to act on behalf of the putative class of
Ollie’s stockholders. On February 20, 2020, the lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint extending the class period to March 26,
2019 through August 28, 2019, alleging substantially similar claims
as the initial complaint, and seeking the same relief.
On March 6, 2020, the court ordered that Michael L. Bangs, Executor
of the Estate of Mark L. Butler be substituted as party for Mark
Butler.
On May 8, 2020, Ollie's and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the action in its entirety.
Ollie's said, "We believe the case to be without merit."
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. is a highly differentiated
and fast-growing, extreme value retailer of brand name merchandise
at drastically reduced prices. Known for its assortment of products
offered as "Good Stuff Cheap," the company offers customers a broad
selection of brand name products, including housewares, food, books
and stationery, bed and bath, flooring, toys and hardware. The
company is based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
ORANGE, CA: Ahlman Seeks to Certify Classes & SubClasses
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MELISSA AHLMAN, DANIEL KAUWE,
MICHAEL SEIF, JAVIER ESPARZA, PEDRO BONILLA, CYNTHIA CAMPBELL,
MONIQUE CASTILLO, MARK TRACE, CECIBEL CARIDAD ORTIZ, and DON
WAGNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. DON BARNES, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Orange
County, California; and ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, Case No.
8:20-cv-00835-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:
1. certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief Pre-trial
Class consisting of:
"all current and future pre-trial detainees incarcerated
at the Orange County Jail from the present until the
COVID-19 pandemic has abated (“Pre-trial Class”); and
2. certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief Post-
conviction Class consisting of:
"all current and future post-conviction prisoners
incarcerated at the Orange County Jail from the present
until the COVID-19 pandemic has abated";
3. certifying an injunctive relief Medically-Vulnerable
Subclass consisting of:
"persons who are medically vulnerable to COVID-19
infections based on their age, disabilities, and/or
health conditions for both the pre-trial detainee and
post-conviction prisoner classes "; and
4. certifying an injunctive relief Disability Subclass of:
"persons within the Medically-Vulnerable Subclasses who
are vulnerable because of a disability as defined in
federal law.
Orange County is a region in Southern California. It's known for
Anaheim's Disneyland Resort, a huge complex of rides, restaurants
and shops.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell Kamin, Esq.
Aaron Lewis, Esq.
Brittany Benjamin, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
Telephone: (424) 332-4800
Facsimile: (424) 332-4749
E-mail: mkamin@cov.com
alewis@cov.com
bbenjamin@cov.com
- and -
Cassandra Stubbs, Esq.
Olivia Ensign, Esq.
Cristina Becker, Esq.
Peter Eliasberg, Esq.
Carl Takei, Esq.
Somil Trivedi, Esq.
Clara Spera, Esq.
Zoe Brennan-Krohn, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
201 W. Main St., Suite 402
Durham, NC 27701
Telephone: (919) 682-5659
Facsimile: (919) 682-5961
E-mail: cstubbs@aclu.org
oensign@aclu.org
cbecker@aclu.org
peliasberg@aclu.org
ctakei@aclu.org
strivedi@aclu.org
cspera@aclu.org
zbrennan-krohn@aclu.org
- and -
Stacey Grigsby, Esq.
Amia Trigg, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-6000
Facsimile: (202) 778-5906
E-mail: sgrigsby@cov.com
atrigg@cov.com
- and -
John Washington, Esq.
SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS,
HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
11543 W. Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 399-7040
Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
E-mail: jwashington@sshhlaw.com
- and -
Paul Hoffman, Esq.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS
LITIGATION CLINIC
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92687
Telephone: (949) 824-0066
E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
PACE FUNDING: CPM and HERA File Solar Panel Finance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy LLP and Housing and Economic Rights
Advocates ("HERA") filed a class action complaint alleging that
solar panel finance and construction companies, namely Pace Funding
Group, LLC, Complete Solar, Inc., Garantia Solar, and Green Pace
Financial, Inc., have targeted hundreds of Spanish speaking and
Latino homeowners throughout California to defraud those homeowners
into entering PACE Assessment Agreements for thousands of dollars.
As alleged, Defendants courted homeowners through daily outreach in
Spanish over phone calls, text messages, and email, but then
delivered the contract and all legal disclosures to the homeowner
in English, implementing a bait-and-switch maneuver and having the
client sign to terms that were never communicated to the client in
their native language.
On top of that, just like the subprime mortgage industry, the
Complaint alleges that Defendants solicited, brokered, and financed
hundreds of homeowner loans to finance solar panels without ever
verifying the financial wherewithal of the homeowner to repay the
loan. To make matters worse, if the homeowner defaults on the loan,
Defendants have as security a priority tax lien (a.k.a. PACE
Assessment) on the homeowner's property, allowing them to foreclose
on the property. Again, Defendants never told this to the
California homeowners they swindled. Or at least, they never told
the homeowner in the homeowner's native language. On purpose.
As alleged in the lawsuit, not only did defendants violate the law
related to PACE Assessments, they also engaged in housing
discrimination known as "reverse redlining." This practice, where
financial institutions target protected classes or disadvantaged
communities with predatory loans, perpetuates racial disparities in
wealth and home ownership.
"This kind of fraud cannot stand," said Alison Cordova, a partner
at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy. "Purposefully targeting non-English
speaking communities in order to defraud them is disgraceful.
Everyone should have the right to pursue the American dream
untarnished."
"Inducing consumers to enter a contract that puts their home at
risk without their knowledge or consent is illegal," according to
Eric Buescher -- ebuescher@cpmlegal.com -- another partner at
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy. "The conduct alleged in the complaint
is an evolution of racist housing policies that have hurt too many
Californians for too long."
"PACE programs have a fiduciary duty to ensure that their
authorized contractors do not engage in fraud and to accurately
disclose the terms of the PACE assessment in a language homeowners
can understand," according to Joe Jaramillo, a senior attorney at
HERA. "This is particularly the case given that the assessment is
secured by a super-priority lien that can put the home at risk of
foreclosure."
About Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
Based in the San Francisco Peninsula for over a half-century,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP -- http://www.cpmlegal.com--
engages exclusively in litigation and trials. The firm's dedication
to prosecuting or defending socially just actions has earned it a
national reputation. With additional offices in Los Angeles and New
York, the core of CPM is its people and their dedication to
principles of law, their work ethic, and their commitment to
justice. [GN]
PANARIUM KISSENA: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Luo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ING FANG LUO and SHUANG QIU
HUANG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
PANARIUM KISSENA INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-03642-WFK-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge William F. Kuntz
entered an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Jing Fang Luo and Shuang Qiu
Huang as class representatives;
3. appointing Troy Law, PLLC as class counsel;
4. permitting the Plaintiffs to circulate a class action
notice by direct mail to the class members; and
5. granting such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
The Defendants include BOULANGERIE DE FAY DA INC. d/b/a Fay Da
Bakery, PATISSERIE DE FAY DA, LLC d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, LE PETIT
PAIN INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, BRAVURA SKY VIEW CORP. d/b/a Fay Da
Bakery, LA PAN MIETTE INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA (QUEENS)
CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA MOTT ST., INC. d/b/a Fay Da
Bakery, FEI DAR, CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, LE PAIN SUR LE MONDE
INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, BRAVURA LLC d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, CHI WAI
CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, PHADARIAN INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY
DA MAIN STREET CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, TORTA DI FAY DA INC.
d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, BRAVURA PATISSERIE (BELL BLVD) CORP. d/b/a Fay
Da Bakery, NICPAT CAFE INC. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA
MANUFACTURING CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA HOLDING CORP. d/b/a
Fay Da Bakery, FAY DA HOLDING GEN 2 CORP. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, HAN
CHIEH CHOU, and KELLEN CHOW.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Tuition Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepperdine University is the latest school to be sued in a
class-action lawsuit seeking reimbursement for tuition, room and
board and other costs amid its COVID-19-related campus closure,
according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.
"Defendant continues to charge full tuition and fees as if full
services and facilities are being provided, collecting millions of
dollars from students deprived of the full benefit of their
payments," the lawsuit states. "Defendant's practices are immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious
because it deprives Plaintiff and Class Members of their bargained
for educational experience, opportunities, and access to
facilities, and forces students and families to bear the burden of
Pepperdine's COVID-19 related shutdown."
If you are paying for college tuition, and/or room and board at any
U.S. college or university closed due to COVID-19, find out more
about the lawsuit and your rights.
The lawsuit was filed June 3, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and accuses the university of
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion and violations of
California law. The law firm representing the parent of the
Pepperdine University student has also brought similar lawsuits
against Boston University, Brown University, Duke University, Emory
University, George Washington University, Hofstra University,
University of Miami, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt
University and Washington University in St. Louis for failure to
refund tuition-payers for their losses.
"Simply put, Pepperdine students experienced significantly less
than what they were promised in their spring 2020 semester,'" said
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney for
students in the class action. "While they were barred access from
the university's campus, dorms, dining halls, libraries, athletic
facilities and other amenities, their tuition was still pocketed by
Pepperdine. We don't think that's right."
The lawsuit highlights that Pepperdine University touts its
location and campus as a major selling point to potential students,
as well as its promise to develop "the next generation of leaders
through rigorous academics, faculty mentorship, and a robust campus
life," with benefits including small classes, campus environment
and individual attention from "teacher-mentors."
Pepperdine requires its first and second-year students to live on
campus.
Pepperdine University Sued by Tuition Payers
The parent bringing the lawsuit, a Texas resident, lost much of
what he paid for in his son's tuition, the suit says.
"With Pepperdine's campus closure and transition to an online-only
educational experience, Plaintiff's son suffered a decreased
quality of experience, education, and lost access to important
university facilities and experiences that were bargained for by
selecting in-person experiences," it reads, adding that the student
lost access to libraries, in-person professor office hours and
more.
As of June 30, 2019, Defendant's endowment totaled approximately
$887.46 million and the university ended the fiscal year with
assets totaling more than $1.96 billion, the lawsuit states. In
2017, Defendant raised $562,049 in just 37 hours for the inaugural
Give2Pepp campaign. For its spring 2020 semester, Pepperdine cost
tuition payers $27,820 for tuition, approximately $7,835 for room
and board and $126 for a campus life fee.
Other Affected Universities
Hagens Berman is investigating the rights of those who are
currently paying for room and board, and/or tuition at all U.S.
colleges and universities that have been forced to close due to the
outbreak of COVID-19. This may include parents, guardians or
college students who are paying for their own costs of college.
Despite orders from colleges and universities sending home students
and closing campuses, these institutions of higher learning
continue to charge for tuition and room and board. Collectively,
these institutions are continuing to receive millions from students
despite their inability to continue school as normal, or occupy
campus buildings and dorms.
Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against colleges and
universities for tuition, room and board and other costs incurred
during the outbreak of COVID-19.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with nine offices across the country. The firm's tenacious
drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.
Contact:
Ashley Klann
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
E-mail: ashleyk@hbsslaw.com
Tel: 206-268-9363
[GN]
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unreimbursed Tuition, Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Steepleton, writing for Malibu Surfside News, reports that
saying that distance-learning isn't what students signed up for
when enrolling at Pepperdine University, a parent filed a
class-action lawsuit against the Malibu institution, claiming the
university continues to "reap the financial benefit" of millions in
tuition, fees and room and board "as if nothing has changed" in the
wake of COVID-19. [GN]
PFIZER INC: Intravenous Saline Solution-Related Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois has granted defendants' motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint in the class action suit related to
intravenous saline solution, and dismissed plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice.
Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Hospira, Inc. (Hospira), Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and
certain other defendants relating to intravenous saline solution.
Plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all persons
and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline
solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until
the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' conduct restricted output
and artificially fixed, raised, maintained and/or stabilized the
prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in
violation of federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs sought treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of
the putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for
alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the
U.S. since January 1, 2013. All actions were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
In July 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in September 2018.
In April 2020, the District Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the second amended complaint, and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself
from purported class action suits over sales of Lipitor.
Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others,
Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions,
Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of Ranbaxy.
The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent
nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons
or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of
the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March
2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful
conduct (the Class Period).
The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the
2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain
patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a
license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets
beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the
procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor.
Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the
Class Period.
In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer,
Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert
claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above.
These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust
Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.
In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and November
2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all
other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs.
All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing
their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.
In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the
order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to
amend their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.
In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to
the District Court.
Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State
of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that Wyeth Holdings Corporation and its
affiliates continue to defend a class action lawsuit related to
Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor.
Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth Holdings LLC
(Wyeth) and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and
certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the
extended-release formulation of Effexor.
The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a
class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who
directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the
defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.
The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of
federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR.
Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the
individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the
purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor
XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June
14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims.
In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments
as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by
direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to
the District Court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHOENIX TREE: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Phoenix Tree
Holdings Limited (DNK). Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court.
Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
DNK Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/phoenix-tree-holdings-limited-loss-form?prid=7168&wire=1
Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited (DNK)
Investors affected purchased American Depositary Shares ("ADS") of
Phoenix pursuant and/or traceable to prospectuses and registration
statements issued in connection with the Company's January 2020
initial public offering
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : June 26, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/phoenix-tree-holdings-limited-loss-form?prid=7168&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, the documents Phoenix Tree issued
in connection with its initial public offering ("IPO") omitted or
otherwise misrepresented the nature and level of renter complaints
the Company had received before and as of the IPO, as well as the
demand in the Chinese residential rental market and the Company's
exposure to significant adverse developments resulting from the
onset of the coronavirus in China - particularly in Wuhan - at the
time of the IPO. After the IPO, reports emerged indicating that
Phoenix was experiencing ongoing problems due to the coronavirus,
which was causing financial and other harm to tenants.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Web site: http://www.zlk.com/[GN]
PNC BANK: Kazi Seeks to Certify Mortgage Loan Officers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TANSEER KAZI, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. PNC
BANK, N.A., et al., Case No. (Filed ), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on June 17, 2020, for an order:
1. certifying class consisting of:
"Mortgage Loan Officers whom Defendant PNC Bank, N.A.,
employed in California at any time since January 4, 2017
through June 30, 2019";
2. appointing her as class representative; and
3. appointing her counsel including their law firms, as class
counsel.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendant's violation of obligation to pay
for all time worked under California Labor Code and Wage Order.
PNC offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Sitkin, Esq.
1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 318-1048
Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com
- and -
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
1101 Kings Hwy. N. Ste. 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
jswidler@swartz-legal.com
- and -
Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A.
7805 S.W. 6th Court
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 472-0002
Facsimile: (954) 472-0052
E-mail: robert@solofflaw.com
- and -
Marc A. Silverman, Esq.
Frank Weinberg Black, P.L.
7805 S.W. 6th Court
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 474-8000
Facsimile: (954) 474-9850
E-mail: msilverman@fwblaw.net
POLSKIE LINIE: Faces Melnyk Class Suit in District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Polskie Linie
Lotnicze Lot S.A. The case is captioned as ANDRIY MELNYK, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. POLSKIE LINIE
LOTNICZE LOT S.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-06119-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., May 20,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.
LOT Polish Airlines, legally incorporated as Polskie Linie Lotnicze
LOT S.A., is the flag carrier of Poland. Based in Warsaw and
established on December 29, 1928, it is one of the world's oldest
airlines in operation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Joseph Obergfell, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER PA
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10106
Telephone: (646) 837-7129
E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Xian Challenges Acquisition by Alexion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weijie Xian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., HOLLINGS C. RENTON, JEFFREY BIRD,
LAURA BREGE, DENNIS FENTON, SCOTT GARLAND, JOHN H. JOHNSON, TED
LOVE, DAVID C. STUMP, and H. WARD WOLFF, Case No. 1:20-cv-04254
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2020), is brought on behalf of the public
shareholders of Portola against the Company and members of the
Company's Board of Directors for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14d-9, in connection with the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Alexion Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and the recommendation statement that omits material
information concerning the Proposed Transaction
On May 5, 2020, Portola announced that the Company had entered into
an agreement and plan of merger with Alexion, pursuant to which
Alexion will acquire all outstanding shares of Portola (the "Tender
Offer") for $18.00 in cash per share of Portola common stock (the
"Offer Price"). The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire on July 1,
2020.
According to the complaint, on May 27, 2020, the Company filed an
incomplete and materially misleading Recommendation Statement with
the SEC (the "Recommendation Statement") on Form 14D-9 in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Recommendation
Statement omits material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction. Accordingly, the failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as
Portola stockholders need such information in order to make a fully
informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the
Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with
the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants were obligated to carefully review the Recommendation
Statement prior to its filing with the SEC and dissemination to the
Company's shareholders to ensure that it did not contain any
material misrepresentations or omissions. However, the Plaintiff
insists, the Recommendation Statement misrepresent and/or omit
material information that is necessary for the Company's
shareholders to make informed decisions concerning whether to
tender their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.
The Recommendation Statement contains financial projections
prepared by senior members of Portola's management in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, but fails to provide material
information concerning such, the Plaintiff notes. The Plaintiff
asserts that as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
unlawful course of conduct in violation of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder, absent injunctive relief from
the Court, the Plaintiff and other shareholders will suffer
irreparable injury by being denied the opportunity to make an
informed decision as to whether to tender their shares in favor of
the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff has been the owner of the common stock of Portola.
Portola is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
and commercialization of novel therapeutics in the areas of
thrombosis, other hematologic diseases and inflammation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 493-9780
Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com
RAILSERVE INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Batista Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP BATISTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RAILSERVE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. 20CV366688 (Cal. Super., Contra Costa Cty., May 22, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of
wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have increased their
profits by failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and
overtime wages); and failing to provide lawful meal periods and
rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof.
The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.
The Defendants are in the business of providing railway
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
ROCHESTER DRUG: VK Acquisitions Buying Assets for $13.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of New York to authorize the bidding
procedures in connection with the sale of (i) the real property
improved by a distribution facility and a parking lot located at
116-117 Lehigh Drive, #3013, Fairfield, New Jersey; and (ii) the
machinery, equipment, furnishings, and fixtures located at the
Fairfield Facility, to VK Acquisitions V, LLC for $13.5 million,
subject to the terms of their Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as
of May 21, 2020, subject to higher and better offers.
The Debtor is the owner of the Purchased Assets. The facility is a
106,000 square foot distribution center that is highly automated
and includes radio-frequency identification technology and related
equipment.
As part of its effort to address its financial situation prior to
commencing the Chapter 11 Case, the Debtor has marketed the
Purchased Assets for sale since February 2020. On Feb. 24, 2020,
it retained Colliers International to market the Purchased Assets.
Colliers has actively marketed the Purchased Assets since its
retention and its marketing efforts have resulted in interest
expressed by several prospective purchasers which have performed
due diligence with regard to the Purchased Assets.
On May 21, 2020, the Debtor received a Purchase and Sale Agreement
from the Purchaser which seeks to purchase the Purchased Assets for
$13.5 million. The Purchase Price is subject to higher and better
offers submitted by competing Qualified Bidders. In the event the
Debtor receives competing Qualified Bids for the Purchase Assets,
the Debtor will conduct an Auction in accordance with the terms of
the Bidding Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court. The
Purchase Agreement is contingent upon the property being conveyed
free and clear of Liens, and the Purchaser seeks to be designated
as the "stalking horse bidder" and enjoy certain related
protections.
In the event that the Court approves, and the Debtor consummates an
Alternative Transaction with a bidder other than the Purchaser, the
Debtor will pay to the Purchaser an amount equal to 2% of the
Purchase Price.
The Debtor estimates that, as of the day of the filing of the Sale
Motion, its pre-petition liabilities aggregate approximately $103
million including (i) approximately $22 million owed to the Lenders
to that certain Amended and Restated Credit Facility Agreement
dated Dec. 10, 2014 and M&T Bank, in its capacities as Agent,
Arranger, Swingline Lender and Letter of Credit Issuer to the
Lenders; (ii) $10 million owed to the United States under a
Deferred Prosecution Agreement and a Settlement Agreement dated
April 23, 2019, and (iii) unsecured claims totaling approximately
$73 million.
The Debtor proposes that the Bidding Procedures, which are intended
to maximize the value of the Purchased Assets, should govern the
submission of competing bids for the Purchased Assets.
The salient terms of the Bidding Procedures are:
a. Bid Deadline: 4:00 p.m. (ET) on July 7, 2020
b. Initial Bid: A purchase offer exceeding the Purchase Price
by the Break-Up Fee ($270,000), plus $50,000
c. Deposit: 10% of the bidder's Initial Qualified Overbid
d. Auction: If one or more Qualified Bids, other than the
Purchaser's, are received by the Debtor, a telephonic Auction will
be held on July 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (ET), or such other date and
time as the Debtor will notify all Qualified Bidders who have
submitted Qualified Bids with respect to the Purchased Assets.
e. Bid Increments: $50,000
f. Sale Hearing: July 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
g. Sale Objection Deadline: July 14, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)
In the instant case, the Purchased Assets are encumbered by the
Secured Party Liens and Secured Party Mortgage. The Secured Party
Liens and Secured Party Mortgage will attach to all net proceeds of
the Purchased Assets. Further, all parties holding liens on the
Purchased Assets will be provided notice of the proposed sale and
will be granted an opportunity to object to the relief requested in
the instant Motion, and any such entity that does not object to the
sale will be deemed to have consented.
To preserve the value of the Debtor's estate and limit the costs of
administering and preserving the Purchased Assets, it is critical
that the Debtor implement the Bidding Procedures as soon as
possible and have the option to close the sale of the Purchased
Assets as soon as possible after all closing conditions have been
met or waived. Accordingly, the Debtor respectfully asks that the
Court waives the 14-day stay period under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h).
A hearing on the Motion is set for June 19, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. The
objection deadline is June 16, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (ET).
A copy of the Bidding Procedures and the Agreement is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y88mfr97 from PacerMonitor.com free of charge.
About Rochester Drug Co-Operative
Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc., is an independently owned New
York cooperative corporation formed in 1905 and incorporated in
1948 with a principal office and place of business located at 50
Jet View Drive, Rochester, New York 14624. Its principal business
is to warehouse, merchandise, and then distribute, on a cooperative
basis, drugs, pharmaceutical supplies, medical equipment and other
merchandise commonly sold in drug stores, pharmacies, health and
beauty stores, and durable medical equipment business. It is a
wholesale regional drug cooperative that operates as both a buying
cooperative and a traditional drug distribution company created for
the purpose of helping independent pharmacies compete in the
current healthcare environment.
Rochester Drug Cooperative sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr.
W.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-20230) on March 12, 2020.
The Debtor was estimated to have $50 million to $100 million in
assets and $100 million to $500 million in liabilities.
The Hon. Paul R. Warren is the case judge.
The Debtor tapped Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, led by Stephen A.
Donato, as counsel and Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC as the
claims and noticing agent.
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Doe Seeks Fee Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUTGERS, The STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, Case No.
MID-L-003039-20 (N.J. Super., Middlesex Cty., May 20, 2020), seeks
refunds of tuition and fees arising from the Defendant's decision
to shut down its campuses, evict students from campus residence
halls, and switch to online "distance" learning to stop the spread
of COVID-19.
Despite sending students home and closing its campus(es), the
Defendant continues to charge for tuition and fees as if nothing
has changed, continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions
of dollars from students, says 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.
The Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the Defendant's actions
he has suffered financial damaged. He and the Class Members did not
receive the full-value of the services paid, did not receive the
benefits of in-person instruction. They have lost the benefit of
their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled
to recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and
attorney's fees and costs, he adds.
On March 10, 2020, Rutgers decided to close its campus, migrating
all or substantially all classes online. On March 21, 2020, New
Jersey Governor Philip D. Murphy entered Executive Order No. 107, a
"Stay at Home Order" to respond to COVID-19.
Rutgers is an American public research university in New Jersey.
Rutgers is the largest institution of higher education in New
Jersey. Rutgers was originally chartered as Queen's College on
November 10, 1766.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and -
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
Steve Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 628-4949
RYDER SYSTEM: July 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 9 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
BIDU Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=7229&wire=1
IQ Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/iqiyi-inc-loss-form?prid=7229&wire=1
R Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7229&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Baidu, Inc. (BIDU)
BIDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2019 -
April 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 22, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=7229&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baidu,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Baidu's feed services were not in
compliance with applicable Chinese regulatory standards; (ii) the
foregoing noncompliance subjected the Company to a heightened risk
of regulatory enforcement, including the removal or suspension of
certain of Baidu's services and products; (iii) accordingly, the
Company's revenues derived from online marketing services were
unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
iQIYI, Inc. (IQ)
The IQ lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) iQIYI American
Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering conducted on or about March 29, 2018; or
(b) iQIYI securities between March 29, 2018, and April 7, 2020.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/iqiyi-inc-loss-form?prid=7229&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (1) iQIYI inflated its revenue
figures; (2) iQIYI inflated its user numbers; (3) iQIYI inflated
its expenses to cover up other fraud; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.
Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R)
R Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 23, 2015 -
February 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7229&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ryder
System, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ryder's financial results were
inflated as a result of the Company's practice of overstating the
residual values of the vehicles in its fleet; (2) there was no
reasonable basis to believe that Ryder would sell its used vehicles
for the amounts that it had assigned to them; (3) Ryder's residual
values for its fleet of vehicles exceeded the expected future
values that would be realized upon the sale of those vehicles; and
(4) 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.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com
[GN]
RYDER SYSTEM: Rosen Notes of July 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R)
between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important July 20, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Ryder investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Ryder class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1858.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) Ryder's financial results were inflated as a result of
the Company's practice of overstating the residual values of the
vehicles in its fleet; (2) there was no reasonable basis to believe
that Ryder would sell its used vehicles for the amounts that it had
assigned to them; (3) Ryder's residual values for its fleet of
vehicles exceeded the expected future values that would be realized
upon the sale of those vehicles by such a degree that the Company
ultimately took a $357 million depreciation charge in 2019 related
to Ryder's reduction of its residual values to align them with the
amounts for which they could realistically be sold; and (4) 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. 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 July 20,
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-1858.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. [GN]
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN]
SCHWAN'S HOME: Lundbom Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Amanda Lundbom filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Amanda Lundbom v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02187-IM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon in Portland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Schwans's Home Service., Inc., and Schwan's Company in
transmitting unsolicited autodialed SMS text message advertisements
to her cellular telephone and the cellular telephone of numerous
other consumers across the country, in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, between in or about July 2018 through
November 2018, and at all hours of the day, the Defendant
transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through and
intermediary or intermediaries, numerous SMS and/or MMS text
message advertisements to the 3075 Number without Plaintiff's
"prior express written consent", the lawsuit says.
The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Lundbom v. Schwan's Home
Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-35480, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by June 29, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on July 28, 2020;
-- Appellant Amanda Lundbom's opening brief is due on
September 8, 2020;
-- Appellees Schwan's Company and Schwan's Home Service,
Inc.'s answering brief is due on October 8, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant AMANDA LUNDBOM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
Defendants-Appellees SCHWAN'S HOME SERVICE, INC. and SCHWAN'S
COMPANY are represented by:
Clifford Scott Davidson, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
One Centerpointe Drive, Suite 170
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Telephone: (503) 624-6800
E-mail: csdavidson@swlaw.com
SIERRA MOUNTAIN: Faces Perez Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Mountain
Express, Inc. The case is captioned as Sigifredo Perez, on behalf
of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public v. Sierra Mountain Express, Inc., Case No.
34-2020-00279284-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 21,
2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
Sierra Mountain is a transportation/trucking/railroad company based
out at 2490 Arnold Industrial Way, in Concord, California.[BN]
SIROB IMPORTS: Final Settlement Approval in Guevara et al. Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as EDGAR GUEVARA and LORENA M.
GUEVARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SIROB IMPORTS, INC., NICK BOBORIS and PETER BOBORIS,
Case No. 15-CV-02895-GRB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. certifying, on a final basis, a Settlement Class consisting
of:
"all nonexempt and/or hourly employees, other than
managers, corporate officers, and directors who performed
work for Sirob Imports, Inc. at any time during the period
from May 19, 2009 until October 19,2019";
2. certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
consisting of:
"all class members who, by endorsing, depositing, or
cashing their settlement check, thereby opt-in to the FLSA
collective";
3. granting final approval of the Class and Collective Action
Settlement Agreement;
4. awarding $10,000 to each class representative as
compensation for their service on behalf of the class;
5. approving administration costs and fees in the amount of
$15,000.00 to be paid to the claims administrator from the
Qualified Settlement Fund ("QSF");
6. approving attorneys' fees of one-third of the settlement
amount, as well as out of pocket litigation expenses, to
be paid to Class Counsel from the QSF;
7. directing the Defendant to deposit into the QSF the total
gross sum of $1,200,000.00 within five days after the
"Effective Date" (as such term is defined in the Class and
Collective Action Settlement Agreement);
8. directing the parties and the claims administrator to
abide by the terms of the Class and Collective Action
Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is annexed to the
proposed order and incorporating the terms of the
settlement agreement into the order;
9. dismissing this case in its entirety with prejudice and
without attorneys' fees or costs to any party except as
provided in the Class and Collective Action Settlement
Agreement; and
10. retaining jurisdiction over this action with respect to
the interpretation and implementation of the Class and
Collective Action Settlement Agreement.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven John Moser, Esq.
MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
5 E. Main St.
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (516) 671-1150
E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRNE)
common stock between May 15, 2020 and May 22, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Wasa Medical Holdings v. Sorrento
Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-cv-00966, and is assigned to Judge
Battaglia. The Sorrento Therapeutics class action lawsuit charges
Sorrento Therapeutics and two of its officers with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Sorrento Therapeutics common stock during
the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
Sorrento Therapeutics class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Sorrento
Therapeutics class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Sorrento Therapeutics class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Sorrento Therapeutics class action lawsuit
is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff of the Sorrento Therapeutics class action
lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the
Sorrento Therapeutics class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins
Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Sorrento
Therapeutics class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than July 27, 2020.
Sorrento Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company. On May 8,
2020, Sorrento Therapeutics announced a collaboration with Mount
Sinai Health System for the purpose of "generat[ing] antibody
products that would act as a ‘protective shield' against
SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection, potentially blocking and
neutralizing the activity of the virus in naïve at-risk
populations as well as recently infected individuals."
On May 15, 2020, Sorrento Therapeutics announced that it had
discovered an antibody that had "demonstrated 100% inhibition of
SARS-CoV-2 virus infection." On that same day, Sorrento
Therapeutics' founder and Chief Executive Officer, defendant Henry
Ji, referred to the Company's discovery as a "cure." The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information
regarding the Company's purported "cure" for COVID-19, including
that the Company's initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in
vitro virus infection would not necessarily translate to success or
safety in vivo, or in person, and that it was not a "cure" for
COVID-19. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or
omissions, the price of Sorrento Therapeutics stock was
artificially inflated to an intraday high of $10 per share during
the Class Period.
On May 20, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report questioning
the validity of Sorrento Therapeutics' claims and calling them
"sensational," "nonsense," and "too good to be true." Hindenburg
spoke with researchers at Mount Sinai who stated that Sorrento
Therapeutics' announcement was "very hyped" and that "nothing in
medicine is 100%." However, that same day, defendant Ji appeared on
Yahoo! Finance to rebut Hindenburg's report, stating that
"investor[s] suspecting . . . another pump and dump" were wrong and
that, "when you see a virus is not infecting the healthy cell, you
know you have the real deal" and "eventually the market [will]
catch[] up."
Then, on May 22, 2020, BioSpace published an article stating that
in a May 21, 2020 interview with defendant Ji and Mark R.
Brunswick, Sorrento Therapeutics' Vice President of Regulatory
Affairs and Quality, defendant Ji "insist[ed] that they did not say
it was a cure." The price of Sorrento Therapeutics' stock fell to a
close of $5.07 per share on May 22, 2020, representing a decline of
approximately 49% from the stock's $10 per share Class Period
intraday high.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
Robbins Geller has over 200 lawyers in 9 offices, with its
headquarters in San Diego, just three blocks away from the Edward
J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse where the Sorrento Therapeutics class
action lawsuit is pending.
Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class
action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS
Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual
SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both
amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action
settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on
behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries
for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in
implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the
financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys
are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations,
and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Michael Albert
Tel: 800-449-4900
E-mail: malbert@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]
SOUTH STATE BANK: Fludd Sues Over Collection of NSF or OD Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA LASHAY FLUDD, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SOUTH STATE BANK, and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-01959-BHH (D.S.C., May 20, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant wrongfully and without authorization, unilaterally and
without warning, withdrew money from the Plaintiff and the Class
Members' checking accounts when it was not authorized by contract
or equities to do so.
The Defendant falsely claimed that the funds it unilaterally took
from the Plaintiff's account were properly assessed Non-Sufficient
Funds fees or overdraft fees, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant was only authorized to assess one fee
per transaction item and instead assessed multiple NSF fees for the
same item, or an NSF fee followed by an overdraft fee on the same
item in violation of its contracts and disclosures with Plaintiff
and the putative class.
The action seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive
relief due to the Defendant's policy and practice of unlawfully
assessing and unilaterally collecting NSF fees in violation of its
contract(s) with the Plaintiff and the class and equities.
South State is the largest bank based in South Carolina and a
subsidiary of South State Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq.
MARK C. TANENBAUM, P.A.
1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 577-5100
Facsimile: (843) 722-4688
E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com
- and -
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
P.O. Box 1090
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
rah@harpootlianlaw.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
mmv@mccunewright.com
- and -
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307-6116
Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com
SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Certification of Hourly Employees Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STEPHEN POSSI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYNERGY
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, WARREN K. HAEBERLE, and BRIAN DEMURI
HAEBERLE, Case No. 2:19-cv-01599-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Parties ask
the Court for an order certifying a class of:
"all persons who are or have been employed as hourly
employees by Synergy between October 30, 2017, and March 26,
2020, whose names appear in the Agreement and who do not
exclude themselves from the Agreement."
The Plaintiff alleges that Synergy failed to properly pay him and
members of the Rule 23 Class overtime compensation.
Synergy is doing business in computer hard drive and consumer
electronics industries.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
Hawks Quindel, S.C.
222 E. Erie Street, Suite 210
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
ljohnson@hq-law.com
tmaynard@hq-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sean M. Scullen, Esq.
Steven M. Kruzel, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2350
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4426
Telephone: (414) 277-5000
Facsimile: (414) 271-3552
E-mail: sean.scullen@quarles.com
steven.kruzel@quarles.com
TAK COMMUNICATIONS: Diaz and Trigo Seek Proper Pay for Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR DIAZ and JOE TRIGO, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TAK COMMUNICATIONS CA, INC.;
and TAK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:20-at-00481
(E.D. Cal., May 18, 2020) is a collective and class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to
challenge its policies and practices of denying proper payment of
all wages (including minimum, regular, and overtime wages, expense
reimbursement, and improper deductions), compensation for
nonproductive work time, as well as Defendant's failure to
authorize, permit, and/or make available rest periods and meal
periods in violation to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), applicable California Labor Code provisions applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, and the Unfair
Business Practices Act, California Business and Professions Code
("UCL").
Plaintiffs and members of the putative Collective and Classes are
current and former non-exempt employees of TAK, who carried out
TAK's installation service business (hereinafter referred to
collectively as "Technicians"). Plaintiffs seek to represent other
current and former nonexempt employees who work as Technicians in
this collective and class action. Plaintiffs allege TAK has engaged
in an unlawful pattern and practices in violation of the FLSA and
the applicable laws of the state of California.
TAK Communications, Inc. is a national fulfillment contractor for
low-voltage installations, providing cable and communication
equipment installations on behalf of cable operators throughout the
United States.
TAK Communications CA, Inc. is the agent of TAK Communications,
Inc. that maintains its principal place of business in Sacramento,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
mlim@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Stacy Savett, Esq.
Shoshana Savett, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Bath Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Sunseet S. Bath, doing
business as: Impressions Dentistry Family Cosmetics DDS PS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Case No.
20-00002-01421-34, was removed from the Washington Superior Court,
Thurston County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington (Tacoma) on May 22, 2020.
The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05489-RBL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Ronald B. Leighton.
The lawsuit alleges violation of insurance-related laws.
Travelers operates as an insurance company. The Company offers
property and casualty insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Amy C. Williams-Derry, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA)
1201 3rd RD Ave., Ste. 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Mark A. Wilner, Esq.
GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
600 University Street, Ste. 2915
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 467-6477
Facsimile: (206) 467-6292
E-mail: mwilner@gordontilden.com
- and -
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Rahn Bentson, Esq.
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY
925 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3800
Seattle, WA 98104-1157
Telephone: (206) 292-8930
E-mail: dan.bentson@bullivant.com
UNITED STATES LIABILITY: Deoleo Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR DEOLEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02301-PD
(E.D. Pa., May 14, 2020) is a class action arising from Defendant's
denial of insurance coverage for Plaintiff's business closure due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiff needed protection against unforeseen events that could
affect his business operation and profits and invested in an "all
risk" commercial insurance policy and regularly paid monthly
premiums to Defendant for the policy. After being devastated by the
impact of COVID-19 on his business, Plaintiff promptly sought
relief via the Policy by filing a claim with Defendant to cover his
losses.
According to the complaint, the Defendant swiftly denied
Plaintiff's claim. In denying Plaintiff's claim, Defendant
wrongfully asserted that Plaintiff's losses were not "direct
physical loss of or damage" to his business. Defendant also
wrongfully asserted that language in the Policy purporting to
exclude claims arising from any "virus, bacterium or other
Microorganism" was applicable to the global COVID-19 pandemic.
On behalf of all other businesses insured by Defendant whose claims
Defendant similarly denied, Plaintiff alleges Defendant has
breached its contracts with its insureds and has been unjustly
enriched.
Plaintiff is a resident of New Jersey and is the owner and operator
of Santas Beauty Salon in Hackensack, within Bergen County, New
Jersey.
United States Liability Insurance Company is a national
property-casualty mutual insurance company with its principal place
of business in Wayne, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
One Haverford Centre
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
Email: BFJ@chimicles.com
- and -
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Appeals Decision in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Teamsters Local
456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal Health Services Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2-17-cv-02817, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Universal
Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion
seeking leave to file a second amended complaint in the class
action suit entitled, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v.
Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al., is pending.
In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company (UHS) and certain UHS officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.
In September 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made
in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations
at the company's behavioral health facilities. Plaintiffs seek
monetary damages for shareholders during the defined class period
as a result of the decrease in share price following various public
disclosures or reports.
In December 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In August 2019, the court granted the company's motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed a motion with the court seeking
leave to file a second amended complaint. Universal Health has
objected to the request.
The appellate case is captioned as Teamsters Local 456 Pension
Fund, et al. v. Universal Health Services Inc., et al., Case No.
20-2094, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TEAMSTERS LOCAL 456 PENSION FUND, et al.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 456 ANNUITY FUND, are represented by:
Dianne M. Anderson, Esq.
Manuel Miranda, Esq.
Maya S. Saxena, Esq.
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE
5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: danderson@saxenawhite.com
mmiranda@saxenawhite.com
msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Lester R. Booker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE
150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Kyla J. Grant, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE
4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 317
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
E-mail: kgrant@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Steven B. Singer, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE
10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
White Plains, NY 10606
E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
- and -
David M. Promisloff, Esq.
PROMISLOFF LAW
100 North 22nd Street Unit 105
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 259-5156
E-mail: david@prolawpa.com
Defendants-Appellees UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC., ALAN B.
MILLER, and STEVE G. FILTON are represented by:
Matthew M. Madden, Esq.
Gary A. Orseck, Esq.
David H. Smith, Esq.
ROBBINS RUSSELL ENGLERT ORSECK UNTEREINER & SAUBER
2000 K Street, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 775-4500
E-mail: mmadden@robbinsrussell.com
gorseck@robbinsrussell.com
- and -
Laura H. McNally, Esq.
Steven A. Reed, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5257
E-mail: laura.mcnally@morganlewis.com
steven.reed@morganlewis.com
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA: Fiore Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
---------------------------------------------------
TONI FIORE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA, Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-03744 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2020) is a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020
academic semester at University of Tampa and who, because of
Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019
("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which
they paid, and/or the services or which their fees were paid,
without having their tuition and fees refunded to them.
On March 11, 2020, Defendant, through a news release, announced
that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all classes would
move to online and remote instruction starting March 16. The
following day, Defendant informed students that all classes would
be held remotely via online format through the end of the Spring
2020 Semester.
As a result of the closure of Defendant's facilities, Defendant has
not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or
opportunities that Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and
paid for. The online learning options being offered to UT 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 Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid
for.
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 Defendant has not provided. Even
if Defendant claims it did not have a choice in cancelling
in-person classes, it nevertheless has improperly retained funds
for services it is not providing.
The University of Tampa is a private university in Tampa,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta
Alec M. Leslie
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
VAIL CORP: Must Provide Unlimited Passes, Rarick Argues
-------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN RARICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE VAIL CORPORATION d/b/a VAIL RESORTS
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01364 (D. Colo.,
May 13, 2020) is an action where Plaintiff seeks relief
individually, and on behalf of all of Defendant's customers
nationwide who purchased annual passes for the 2019-2020 season or
fixed season passes for the 2019-2020 season who, as of the closure
of Defendant's resorts, had not used up all of the days remaining
on their fixed season passes for breach of express warranties,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, and breach of contract.
In March 2020, Defendant announced that it was closing all of its
mountain resorts indefinitely. Subsequently, Defendant announced
that its "North American resorts and retail stores will remain
closed for the 2019-20 winter ski season." Defendant has not fully
compensated its customers for their lost mountain resort access.
Rather, Defendant has offered credits ranging from 20% to 80% of
the pass values to season and day passholders. The credits
currently offered are insufficient to remedy Plaintiff and class
members' damages, as they are mere coupons that expire, if not
used, by the start of the 2020-2021 season. According to the
complaint, Defendant has unjustly enriched itself by retaining
passholder fees of hundreds of thousands of consumers -- while
denying passholders all access to all of Defendant's mountain
resorts.
In connection with the sale of passes, Defendant issues an express
warranty that customers would have unlimited access to its mountain
resorts, or for the fixed season passes, that they would have
access to Defendant's mountain resorts for a specified number of
days. According to the complaint, Defendant breached its express
warranty because Defendant does not provide unlimited access to its
mountain resorts, and, for the fixed season passes, does not
provide access to resorts even for customers who still have unused
fixed season passes left for the 2019-2020 season. In fact,
Defendant has retained the full amount of its pass fees while 100%
of its mountain resorts are closed.
The Vail Corporation, d/b/a Vail Resorts Management Company, is the
operator of more than 34 North American ski resorts throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
VALHI INC: NL Industries Still Faces Lawsuits over Lead Pigments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that NL Industries, Inc. (NL), a subsidiary
of Valhi, Inc., still defends itself against lawsuits arising from
use of lead pigments in paints.
NL Industries, Inc.'s (NL's) former operations included the
manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.
NL, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint
and lead-based paint (together, the "former pigment
manufacturers"), and the Lead Industries Association (LIA), which
discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as
defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.
Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states,
counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school
districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions.
These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including
public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent
failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty,
conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional
tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer
protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.
The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages are
generally unspecified.
In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the
requirements of applicable state law. A number of cases are
inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining
cases are in various pre-trial stages.
Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings
or a trial verdict in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.
The company believes that these actions are without merit, and NL
intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and
liability and to defend against all actions vigorously.
Other than with respect to the Santa Clara, California public
nuisance case, the company do not believe it is probable that it
hade incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment
litigation cases to which NL is a party, and with respect to all
such lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party, the
company believes liability to NL that may result, if any, in this
regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:
• NL has never settled any of the market share, intentional tort,
fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty,
conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, or statutory cases,
• no final, non-appealable adverse judgments have ever been
entered against NL, and
• NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any
such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a
thirty-year period for which NL was previously a party and for
which NL has been dismissed without any finding of liability.
Valhi said, "Accordingly, other than with respect to the Santa
Clara case, we have not accrued any amounts for any of the pending
lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases filed by or on
behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing
authorities and school districts, or those asserted as class
actions. In addition, we have determined that liability to NL which
may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time
because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which
an estimate could be made and there is no substantive information
available upon which an estimate could be based."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Valhi, Inc., headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is primarily a holding
company. The Company operates through its wholly-owned and
majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos
Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc. and Waste Control
Specialists LLC.
VITAL ONE: Court Dismisses Dickey TCPA Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAWN DICKEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VITAL ONE HEALTH PLANS DIRECT, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company; et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01399-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
joint motions to dismiss filed by Dickey and Defendants Vital One,
Rene Luis, Eliberto Gracia, and Martin Diaz.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint on Oct. 10, 2018, seeking damages
and equitable remedies based on the Defendants' alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The parties,
however, eventually reached a settlement and notified the Court
thereof on Nov. 7, 2019. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties
moved jointly to dismiss the Plaintiff's individual claims with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the class claims
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 23(e).
Applying the three Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands factors in
the case, Judge Drozd concludes that dismissal of the Plaintiff's
class claims without prejudice will not harm any putative class
members. First, there is no evidence that any putative class
members are relying on the action. Second, the putative class
members would not be barred from filing their own individual or
class claims by a statute of limitations. Finally, the settlement
between the Plaintiff and the Defendants only resolves the
Plaintiff's individual claims -- because the parties are only
requesting dismissal of the class claims without prejudice, leaving
the putative class members free to pursue a new class action, no
class interests are being conceded.
The Judge therefore deems the Diaz factors satisfied in the case.
Because there is no risk of prejudice, notice to the putative class
members is not required.
Accordingly, Judge Drozd granted the parties' joint motions to
dismiss. The Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); and the Plaintiff's
class claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule
23(e). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/2XjqJS from Leagle.com.
Dawn Dickey, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jarrett L. Ellzey ,
Hughes Ellzey, LLP, 1105 Milford Street,Houston, TX 77066, pro hac
vice, John P. Kristensen -- john@kristensenlaw.com -- Kristensen
Weisberg, LLP & David Levi Weisberg -- david@kristensenlaw.com --
Kristensen Weisberg LLP.
Vital One Health Plans Direct, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by David Jay Kaminski --
KaminskiD@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP & Stephen Albert
Watkins -- watkinss@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP.
WELLS FARGO: Aug. 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on June 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of investors that purchased Wells
Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) securities between April 5, 2020 and
May 5, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 8,
2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On April 5, 2020, Wells Fargo announced that it had received strong
interest in the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), a program
under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the
"CARES Act"), and was targeting to distribute a total of $10
billion to small business customers under the requirements of the
PPP.
On April 8, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced that it would allow
Wells Fargo to exceed the asset cap that it had imposed on Wells
Fargo in 2018 after revelations that the Company had opened
millions of accounts in customers' names without their permission,
a change which would allow Wells Fargo to make additional small
business loans as part of the PPP.
That same day, Wells Fargo issued a press release stating, in
relevant part, that, "beginning immediately, in response to the
actions by the Federal Reserve, [Wells Fargo] will expand its
participation in the [PPP] and offer loans to a broader set of its
small business and nonprofit customers subject to the terms of the
program."
On April 19, 2020, after at least one lawsuit was filed against the
Company, reports emerged that Wells Fargo may have unfairly
allocated government-backed loans under the PPP. For example, USA
Today reported that "[t]he lawsuit filed on behalf of small
business owners on June 7 alleges that Wells Fargo unfairly
prioritized businesses seeking large loan amounts, while the
government's small business agency has said that PPP loan
applications would be processed on a first-come, first-served
basis." According to the lawsuit, "[t]he move by Wells Fargo meant
that the bank would receive millions more dollars in processing
fees," and, "[m]aking matters worse, Wells Fargo concealed from the
public that it was reshuffling the PPP applications it received and
prioritizing the applications that would make the bank the most
money."
Following this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell more than 5%
over two trading days to close at $26.84 per share on April 21,
2020.
Finally, on May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed a quarterly report on
Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosing,
in addition to multiple PPP-related lawsuits initiated against the
Company, that Wells Fargo had "received formal and informal
inquiries from federal and state governmental agencies regarding
its offering of PPP loans."
Following this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell by more than 6%
over two trading days from its closing price on May 4, 2020,
closing at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020.
The complaint, filed on June 4, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about Wells Fargo's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate
government-backed loans under the PPP, and/or had inadequate
controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (ii) the foregoing
foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with respect to
PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or
potential enforcement actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
If you purchased Wells Fargo securities during the Class Period,
are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn
more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato or Marion Passmore by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a
nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and
California. The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex
litigation in state and federal courts across the country. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, and indexed under
20-cv-03697, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
Wells Fargo securities between April 5, 2020, and May 5, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Wells Fargo securities
during the class period, you have until August 3, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
Tel: 888.476.6529
Toll-Free: 888.4-POMLAW, Ext. 7980.
Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company that
provides banking, investment, mortgage, and consumer and commercial
finance products and services to individuals, businesses, and
institutions in the U.S. and internationally.
On April 5, 2020, Wells Fargo announced that it had received strong
interest in the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), a program
under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the
"CARES Act"), and was targeting to distribute a total of $10
billion to small business customers under the requirements of the
PPP.
On April 8, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced that it would allow
Wells Fargo to exceed the asset cap that it had imposed on Wells
Fargo in 2018 after revelations that the Company had opened
millions of accounts in customers' names without their permission,
a change which would allow Wells Fargo to make additional small
business loans as part of the PPP.
That same day, Wells Fargo issued a press release stating, in
relevant part, that, "beginning immediately, in response to the
actions by the Federal Reserve, [Wells Fargo] will expand its
participation in the [PPP] and offer loans to a broader set of its
small business and nonprofit customers subject to the terms of the
program."
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about Wells Fargo's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to,
and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the PPP,
and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such
misallocation; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the
Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well
as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement
actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On April 19, 2020, after at least one lawsuit was filed against the
Company, reports emerged that Wells Fargo may have unfairly
allocated government-backed loans under the PPP. For example, USA
Today reported that "[t]he lawsuit filed on behalf of small
business owners on Sunday alleges that Wells Fargo unfairly
prioritized businesses seeking large loan amounts, while the
government's small business agency has said that PPP loan
applications would be processed on a first-come, first-served
basis." According to the lawsuit, "[t]he move by Wells Fargo meant
that the bank would receive millions more dollars in processing
fees," and, "[m]aking matters worse, Wells Fargo concealed from the
public that it was reshuffling the PPP applications it received and
prioritizing the applications that would make the bank the most
money."
Following this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell more than 5%
over two trading days to close at $26.84 per share on April 21,
2020.
Finally, on May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed a quarterly report on
Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosing,
in addition to multiple PPP-related lawsuits initiated against the
Company, that Wells Fargo had "received formal and informal
inquiries from federal and state governmental agencies regarding
its offering of PPP loans."
Following this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell by more than 6%
over two trading days from its closing price on May 4, 2020,
closing at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
[GN]
WELLS FARGO: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo
& Company ("Wells Fargo" or "the Company") for violations of
Sections 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 5,
2020 and May 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 3, 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
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. Wells Fargo schemed to improperly
allocate government-backed loans as part of the PPP program, and
failed to maintain appropriate controls over its loans as part of
the government program. This action left the company open to
litigation risk as well as regulatory attention by the federal
government. 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 Wells Fargo, 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.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Labor-Related Class Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend itself against labor-related class action suit.
The company is involved in certain class action litigation in which
the plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions and other items.
Based on the knowledge of the facts, management does not currently
believe the outcome of these class actions is likely to have a
material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations.
Werner said, "However, the final disposition of these matters and
the impact of such final dispositions cannot be determined at this
time."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
WESTROCK SERVICES: Faces Castrejon Employment Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westrock Services
LLC. The case is captioned as Humberto Castrejon, on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. Westrock Services LLC, a
Georgie Limited and Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2020-00279027-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 20, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
WestRock is an American corrugated packaging company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristina Alicia De La Rosa, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 C St., Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92101-5394
Telephone: (619) 595-3001
WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast and Simone Seek Proper Pay for Flaggers
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR BALLAST and LUIS SIMONE, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, -against WORKFORCE7 INC.,
SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, LLC, M. J. ELECTRIC, LLC,
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., JOHN DOE CORP. #1,
and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03812 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020) is an action brought by the
Plaintiffs to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay
owed to them pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime
and supplemental benefits which they and the members of the
putative Class were entitled to receive for work, including weekend
work, they performed pursuant to contracts entered into between
Defendants, public utility companies such as Con Ed and National
Grid and/or state, city or local public entities, which required
payment of prevailing wages.
Plaintiffs are construction flaggers who worked for Defendants on
public streets, roadways and sidewalks throughout New York City and
New York State, pursuant to contracts with Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc., National Grid and New York City and New
York State public entities.
Workforce7 Inc. is a New York-based company that specializes in
industries that need flaggers and securing parking for construction
companies and the utility industries.
Safeway Construction Enterprises, LLC is a utility contractor in
New York City, New York.
M. J. Electric, LLC is a Michigan-headquartered nationally
recognized prime electrical contractor in the electric
transmission, substation, distribution, renewable energy, power,
industrial, instrumentation, and civil/foundation construction
industries.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. is a regulated
utility providing electric and gas service in New York City and
Westchester County, New York, and steam service in the borough of
Manhattan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
ZARA USA: Gillett Seeks Overtime Pay for Manual Workers
-------------------------------------------------------
LATRELL GILLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- ZARA USA, INC. and INDITEX USA LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03734 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2020) seeks
to recover overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff
and similarly situated non-exempt hourly positions such as stock
associates, sales associates, and cashiers who work or have worked
for Zara USA, Inc. and Inditex USA LLC pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, despite being manual workers,
Defendants have failed to properly pay Plaintiff and other Hourly
Workers in New York their wages within seven calendar days after
the end of the week in which these wages were earned. Despite
paying Plaintiff and other Hourly Workers in New York the
applicable minimum wage and requiring them to work shifts of over
10 hours, Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and similarly
situated Hourly Workers in New York spread of hours pay.
Zara USA, Inc. is a New York-based company that sells retail
clothing and fashion accessories at their stores throughout the
United States.
Inditex USA LLC is one of the world's largest fashion retailers
based in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Hunter G. Benharris, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
[*] Cos. Need Prudent Responses to the Price Gouging Legal Regime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Mahan, Esq. -- carrie.mahan@weil.com -- Eric Hochstadt, Esq.
-- eric.hochstadt@weil.com -- Pravin Patel, Esq. --
pravin.patel@weil.com -- and Anthony Duh, Esq., of Weil, Gotshal &
Manges, in an article for Law.com, report that amid the COVID-19
pandemic, news feeds have been replete with stories of some
businesses and individuals taking advantage of the situation and
inflating prices for critical items in violation of federal and
state laws. Many other businesses, however, face a Catch-22.
Unprecedented supply chain changes and pricing pressures
necessitate some price increases, but state and local laws are
announced daily that severely limit the ability to increase prices.
Navigating these dynamic legal requirements of new and evolving
price gouging laws presents a host of issues for companies seeking
to manage their businesses and continue compliance.
Laws That Could Give Rise to Class Action Exposure
Price gouging laws generally share a few common elements: they are
triggered by certain types of "public emergencies"; they apply to
certain types of goods or services; and they are intended to police
the unconscionable or excessive pricing of those goods or services
during the public emergency. Not all state price gouging laws
provide private litigants a right to sue. While some state laws do,
and may even expressly allow for class actions, such as in
Michigan, other states make price gouging a violation of another
state consumer protection law. This allows for dual enforcement --
by the government and by private litigants. For example, there are
three putative consumer class actions pending in California federal
courts alleging illegal price gouging conduct surrounding the
prices of foods, medical supplies and consumer goods. Instead of
suing under California's price gouging statute, the plaintiffs in
these cases brought claims under the state's unfair competition
statute. This was possible because the price gouging statute
expressly states that a violation under the statute also
constitutes unfair competition under another statute that has
historically been used as a vehicle for class action claims. The
plaintiffs in the California cases also brought claims alleging
illicit price gouging conduct under other legal theories commonly
forwarded in class actions—breach of contract, negligence and
unjust enrichment.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and state governments
also are bringing investigations and reviewing the efficiency and
efficacy of consumer protection and price gouging statutes. In
addition to investigations in 46 states, including New York,
California and Connecticut, this scrutiny has created a moving
target for companies when it comes to assessing possible price
gouging conduct, and it is important that companies keep track of
this shifting legal regime. Already, some states have passed or are
considering new or expanded price gouging laws. For example,
pre-COVID-19, Alaska and Maryland had no codified anti-price
gouging statute. That changed during the pandemic; now 38 states
have some sort of anti-price gouging law. Some states, such as New
York, have passed bills expanding their anti-price gouging statutes
to explicitly cover broader categories of goods, such as medical
supplies. Other states, such as California and New Jersey, limit
how much the price of certain goods may increase from
"pre-emergency" to a declared state of emergency. These states have
anti-price gouging statutes with defined ceilings of between 10%
(e.g., California) and 25% (e.g., Kansas). In contrast, such states
as New York and Florida, generally prohibit "unconscionable"
increases above pre-emergency prices.
At the federal level, the House of Representatives passed the
HEROES Act, which, if codified, will create the first-ever federal
anti-price gouging statute. A violation of the proposed federal
statute will automatically constitute a violation under the Federal
Trade Commission Act, the operating statute that empowers the
Federal Trade Commission to prevent and police unfair methods of
competition. While the HEROES Act does not allow a private litigant
to bring claims, scrutiny from federal regulators will only attract
attention to a company's pricing practices and lend support to
consumer class action lawsuits predicated on the same practices. As
of June 8, the bill is still being considered by the U.S. Senate.
Prudent Responses to the Price Gouging Legal Regime
Class action exposure for price gouging can be significant, ranging
from injunctive relief, damages, restitution, penalties or attorney
fees. For example, North Carolina and New Jersey's consumer
protection and consumer fraud laws allow recovery of treble damages
and attorney fees.
Price gouging laws do not mean, however, that a business can never
change its price during public emergencies. While there are no set
rules for making pricing decisions across all industries and in
compliance with all state and local legislation, it is clear that
companies need to closely evaluate and methodically plan pricing
decisions with input from legal counsel at the outset.
First, companies can consider maintaining an understanding of state
and federal laws addressing price gouging conduct. While the
shifting legal regimes make this easier said than done, it is
prudent to do so.
Second, some price gouging statutes consider whether price
increases reasonably reflect actual additional costs that arise
from the emergency circumstances. Thus, if price increases are
considered, companies may want to document the rationale for the
proposed increases. These rationales include, for example,
increased input, manufacturing, labor or transportation costs.
Companies may also want to document any projected impact of a
public emergency on their businesses. Such records would be most
useful if kept in a contemporaneous manner to justify a challenged
price increase.
Third, companies looking to avoid price gouging liability should
also consider being cognizant of state and federal antitrust laws
and ensure their decisions with respect to pricing do not violate
them. Even in a declared state of public emergency, it is illegal
to coordinate output or pricing with competitors.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, companies can continue to
operate their businesses in a manner that allows them to flexibly
respond to evolving conditions. However, they should stay vigilant
and continue to monitor how the shifting dynamics of the price
gouging and consumer protection legal regimes may impact their
pricing decisions and practices. [GN]
[*] Dentons Notes of Risks for Senior Homes in Western Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dentons wrote in JD Supra about senior homes and Covid-19 in
Western Canada.
Senior homes have been the target of multi-million dollar class
action lawsuits across Canada related to COVID-19, including an
action recently commenced in Alberta. The proposed classes include
both residents and their families and the claims are largely
grounded in negligence for failure to conduct regular testing to
prevent the spread of COVID-19; failure to implement adequate
protocols for infected residents; and failure to isolate infected
residents. Common heads of damages include pain and suffering,
emotional distress and loss of consortium. Additionally, the
regulatory regime in which senior homes operate may not be
considered significant mitigating factors.
As the COVID-19 pandemic carries on, senior homes should expect
this trend in class actions will continue. It is not only senior
homes that may be named in these lawsuits - government agencies may
also be accused of failing in their stewardship role. Here we will
examine the issues that impact British Columbia and Alberta in
these types of claims both at the certification stage and beyond.
We will also review the relevant British Columbia and Alberta
legislation, regulations and public health orders which may impact
the course and nature of these types of class proceedings.
Certification and beyond
At the certification hearing, the plaintiff has the onus to show
"some basis in fact" for each of the certification requirements
other than the first requirement that the claim as pleaded
discloses a cause of action. Assuming that the pleaded claims do
not diverge far from common law negligence, it is likely that this
part of the test will be met. The contested grounds for
certification will likely relate to the other parts of the test:
namely, that there is an overly broad class definition, lack of
evidentiary basis for the proposed common issues, and a failure to
demonstrate that a class action is the preferable procedure.
The public nature of the issues involved, and governmental
responses to same, may provide some interesting and complex
arguments on the certification criteria. In demonstrating an
identifiable class of individuals who were infected with COVID-19,
plaintiffs are likely to rely on public health investigations
conducted by provincial authorities, who may themselves be
defendants. Detailed expert testimony, by epidemiologists and other
medical experts, may be necessary for the defendants to refute the
proposed size and scope of the class as well as its temporal
aspects. Similarly, proposed common issues around exposure of class
members to COVID-19 and the response plans that were implemented in
regards to each resident may be highly technical in nature and
require expert evidence to properly define. The involvement of such
experts may have collateral benefits too. In Wilson v Depuy
International Ltd1 the Court stated that the ability of counsel to
consult with medical experts may assist the parties in reaching a
reasonable settlement, rather than proceeding to an expensive class
action trial.
While expert involvement at the certification stage may be
beneficial in defining the issues, it will not be weighed to
determine those issues. As noted by the Alberta Court of Appeal in
Warner v Smith & Nephew Inc:2 "[t]he existence of a scientific
controversy, particularly at the certification stage, is not
determinative of the merits of the claim. … [U]ncertainty in the
expert evidence does not mean that the claim will necessarily be
unsuccessful." Defendants may however use expert evidence to
support arguments that the nature and complexity of the individual
issues outweigh the common issues, and that the goals of class
proceedings, including behaviour modification, are addressed by
alternative means such as a public health inquiry.
If a proposed class proceeding is certified, there will likely be
additional hearings to determine the notice to be issued to the
class and the administration of the notice. While many class
actions settle prior to the determination of common issues via
trial, more and more class claims are reaching the trial stage.
Parties (including operators) should therefore consider at an early
stage the type of trial evidence that may be required, including
evidence on the nature of the COVID-19 infection, as it pertains to
care practices and to each known class member.
The regulatory regime
Any proposed class proceeding brought against senior homes and/or
government must also be considered in the context of the applicable
regulations. A defendant to a potential class action in Alberta
should consider relying on section 66.1 of the Alberta Public
Health Act to argue that no action for damages may be brought
against an organization acting under the direction of the Crown or
medical officers for good faith health conduct directly or
indirectly related to a public health emergency. However, the
British Columbia situation is different as under section 10(1) of
the British Columbia Emergency Health Services Act, only appointed
or authorized persons have protections against liability. Further,
statutory limitations on liability do not extend to senior homes in
British Columbia unless future public health orders or legislative
amendments provide such a defence. These may prove to be
significant distinctions between Alberta and British Columbia
claims.
Another consideration from a class action perspective is that both
Alberta and British Columbia have laws requiring senior homes to
have representative councils made up of family members to represent
the interests of the persons in care. In Alberta, this obligation
arises under the Resident and Family Councils Act and in British
Columbia it is the Residential Care Regulation under the Community
Care and Assisted Living Act. As a result, class proceedings may
include family members as a proposed class, or sub-class, and
allege these regulations give rise to additional duties of care.
Senior homes should make all efforts to comply with obligations
under these statutes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, even if the
interactions must be carried out electronically through video or
audio conference. Councils created and taking action in good faith
pursuant to this legislation are protected from liability, though
they may become subject to administrative penalties or fines where
conduct is made in bad faith, or contravenes specific sections of
the legislation or a facility's licence agreement.3
Alberta legislation may present an additional area of liability
risk for operators. As part of an operator's obligation to support
a resident and family council under the Alberta Resident and Family
Councils Act, the operator must "make space within the residential
facility available, to the extent reasonably practicable, for
meetings of resident and family councils." A failure to do so could
be framed as a contributing factor to COVID-19 related injuries,
particularly pain and suffering. To meet this requirement during
COVID-19, operators may want to hold virtual meetings as frequently
as they would hold in-person meetings, and ensure that the virtual
meetings meet the same needs as the in-person meetings. Alberta
operators are further required under this Act to "take all
requests, concerns and proposed solutions expressed by a resident,
a member of a resident's family or a resident and family council
into consideration when making decisions that affect the
residents." The Residential Care Regulation imposes very similar
obligations in British Columbia arising under section 59. As with
any situation where litigation may be a risk, it is important for
operators in both provinces to establish ways to demonstrate that
they have considered the request, concerns, and proposed
solutions.
Future considerations
Class proceedings against senior care facilities and government can
be expected to proliferate throughout the COVID-19 pandemic due to
the vulnerable population of care residents. Operators and public
authorities can prepare for such proceedings and limit risk
exposures by following best practices during a health emergency and
documenting such practices in detail. Keeping open and clear lines
of communication with residents and their families regarding all
efforts to respond to the pandemic may be of particular importance.
Documenting and storing all relevant records of such efforts (in
accordance with applicable legislation), along with consistent and
informative interactions with individual residents and family
members, will help demonstrate the compliance efforts made at each
stage of the response. Where internal investigations into outbreaks
or preventative measures are required, these should be completed
under the guidance and supervision of legal counsel.
In the event that an operator is faced with a class action, it
should promptly take proactive steps to preserve and maintain all
relevant records, both hard copy and electronic, that relate to the
operator's conduct, or that of any staff member, resident, or
resident family member. These records will be critical to
demonstrating regulatory and legislative compliance. [GN]
[*] New Normal Redefines Class Action Litigation
------------------------------------------------
Mark Heise, Esq., and Patricia Melville, Esq., of Heise Suarez
Melville, in an article for Law.com, report that as today's new
normal redefines class-action litigation, lawyers interested in
meeting the demand for quality legal representation are finding
they must keep up with new products, issues, and trends. The future
of class actions over the next decade will be shaped by industries
that will require greater specialization, ability to stay abreast
of cutting-edge products and services, and skill navigating
unchartered territories.
Why? The cutting-edge growth companies destined to drive
class-action litigation involve products and services in early
stages of development that are introducing an evolving set of legal
issues and ramifications. Specifically, these industries include:
-- Video conferencing technology platforms such as Zoom and
Microsoft Teams
-- Online retail
-- Food-delivery services
-- Marijuana (CBD-based products for beauty, health and pain
relief)
-- Cyber currency (Bitcoin, Ethereum and currency exchanges)
-- Vaping (e-cigarettes, nicotine and cannabis) and
pharmaceuticals (which have issues related to compounding and
adverse reactions, among others)
The legal industry has been struggling to stay up to speed with the
ongoing developments and rapid evolution of new products and
services, and how they impact the companies that deliver them, the
investors who fund them, and the consumers who use them, as well as
the laws that regulate them.
Consider:
* Business-interruption insurance: Over 150 class-action
lawsuits already have been filed as insurance companies begin
denying business-interruption claims related to COVID-19. With so
much attention focused on "damage to property" requirements or
pandemic exclusions, how will these contracts be written in the
future for the next, perhaps deadlier pandemic?
* Cruise lines: Passengers are filing class actions against
cruise lines for alleged misinformation related to COVID-19 safety.
Questions from the Watergate era of "what did you know and when did
you know it" become increasingly difficult to answer with precision
when faced with a once-every-century pandemic.
* Securities and Exchange Commission: As the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) continues to bring forth new regulations,
securities class actions like the Bitcoin Manipulation Suit based
on new regulations will continue to be filed. Additionally, we can
expect the filing of travel-related securities fraud class actions
alleging failure to disclose potential COVID-19 impacts in their
disclosures.
* Marijuana: An evolving set of problems with CBD-based products
and false advertising will lead to continued claims.
* Drugs: We may see class-action litigation related to COVID-19
vaccines or those who administer them or compounders who prepare
them, and the impact of legislation passed by state legislatures
around the country to limit or eliminate liability.
* Vaping: Exploding e-cigarettes, health impacts of nicotine and
cannabis will continue to be filed.
How can lawyers best prepare to work with clients in these dynamic
new areas expected to represent the lion's share of class action
litigation for years to come?
First, let's consider what differentiates the cases that defined
class-action litigation during the past decade. A case in point:
Our team's work on the largest automobile recall in history, which
resulted in over $1.5 billion for the owners and lessees of
millions of cars nationwide with deadly, defective Takata airbags.
While complex and high-profile, this case involved widely
understood and well-established industries and products. In the
next decade, we can expect to see additional class actions related
to defective products in the automotive industry, as well as other
industries, including:
* Climate change: We will continue to see a growth in lawsuits
filed against major energy companies and other industry players as
climate change issues and concerns continue to mount. Khatanga,
Siberia, a town located well north of the Arctic Circle, recorded a
temperature of 78 degrees on May 22. This situation is only going
to get worse.
* Data privacy breaches: Introduction of everything from new
technologies to new ways to hack them will continue to lead to
class-action litigation. For months, online videoconferencing did
not require passwords, thereby exposing personal information to the
general population. The lack of security was so easily breached it
gave way to a new term: "Zoom Bombing." Although solutions may be
found along the way for these types of problems that will continue
to arise, what will happen with the instant recording of video
calls and getting consent from all participants to do so?
The challenges and complexities of filing major class-action
litigation in these industries, although always significant, pale
in comparison to filing suit in the array of new, innovative
industries currently mushrooming throughout the United States and
abroad. Handling class-action litigation in the new frontier will
require:
* Shifting your mindset. Be prepared to embrace change.
Recognize that you're going to have to study up on new products,
industries and legal issues, and face some risk in tackling cases
with more unknowns.
* Attending conferences and collaborating with leaders
(virtually or otherwise) in the emerging industries. This is one of
the best ways to learn while also developing a network of potential
clients, referral sources and professional contacts within these
new industries.
* Staying abreast of news surrounding the emerging industries.
Beyond enabling you to learn the latest, this also will help you
understand the perceptions of key stakeholders in class-action
litigation, including the news media to the legal, regulatory and
judiciary, as well as the public.
Although these strategies and tactics sound simple, they require
significant time, effort and resources. Personal and firmwide
commitment will be required.
The next decade of class-action litigation will bring to the legal
industry a new set of complexities, but also a new set of
opportunities. Attorneys who take the right steps will position
themselves to seize the opportunities in providing the high-caliber
representation clients need in the new normal and beyond. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $201.4MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$201,427,000 reserve at March
31, 2020, for the total costs, including defense costs, for
Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2052, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained a nationally
recognized expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities to
assist it in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability. Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability
claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as of
December 31, 2006. This analysis has been periodically updated
since that time. In 2018, the Corporation engaged Nathan
Associates Inc. ("Nathan") to update the liability valuation, and
additional reserves were established by the Corporation as of
December 31, 2018, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2052.
"Nathan estimated in 2018 the number of future claims for Asbestos
Liability that would be filed through the year 2052, as well as the
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future unasserted claims through 2052. This
methodology has been accepted by numerous courts.
"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liability. In developing the estimate,
the Corporation considered Nathan's projection for settlement or
indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's projection
of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to
indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements in
effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions
regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior
impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy
exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers,
and the nature of the underlying claims for Asbestos Liability
asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected
in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated
erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden
arising out of the Products. In addition to consulting with the
Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the
Corporation consulted with a nationally recognized insurance
consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain
policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors
considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries
from relevant historical insurance for Asbestos Liability. Based
upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking
into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available
information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers,
the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2052.
"The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2018, for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, was
US$227,922,000. The reserve at March 31, 2020, was US$201,427,000.
Defense costs are estimated at 80% of settlement costs. The
Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2018, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2018, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and
defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability
claims, was US$152,508,000 (US$132,870,000 at March 31, 2020)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/OtHUMq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 6,281 Claims Still Pending at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion 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 there are 6,281 unresolved asbestos claims
related to the Bendix legacy Honeywell business at March 31, 2020.
The Company also reported that in the three months ended March 31,
2020, there were 509 new claims filed and 708 claims resolved.
As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").
The Company states, "The accounting for the majority of our
asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable reflect
the terms of the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with
Honeywell entered into on September 12, 2018, under which we are
required to make payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90% of
Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and accounts
payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the United
States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments
and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related
liability payments and accounts payable, in each case related to
legacy elements of the Business, including the legal costs of
defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's
net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other
recoveries associated with such liabilities. The Indemnification
and Reimbursement Agreement provides that the agreement will
terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048 or (y) December
31st of the third consecutive year during which certain amounts
owed to Honeywell during each such year were less than US$25
million as converted into Euros in accordance with the terms of the
agreement."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/gSJ1xw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Lift Stay in D/C Bankruptcy Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC 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 motion to lift the stay in connection with
D/C Distribution, LLC's bankruptcy proceeding was heard and taken
under advisement in April 2020.
The Company states, "On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a
lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C
Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was
served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for
such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that
it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and
indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the
policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the
material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the
material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the
terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted;
that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys'
fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have
been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to
recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has
paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In
addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement
with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land
provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by
D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy
at issue in this lawsuit.
"In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. Such settlement amount
was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the secured
indebtedness.
"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately
US$26,800,000, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany
debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal
injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with
asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of
approximately two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that
a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C
that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the
trustee will deal with these claims. It is not expected, however,
that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in
the liquidation of D/C.
"On January 21, 2020, certain asbestos claimants filed a Stay
Relief Motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 07-12776 ("motion to lift
stay") in connection with the D/C bankruptcy proceeding. The
motion seeks the entry of an order, among other things, modifying
the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy to permit those claimants
to prosecute various lawsuits in state courts against D/C
Distribution, LLC, and to recover on any judgment or settlement
solely from any available insurance coverage. Various oppositions
to the motion to lift stay have been filed, and the matter was
heard and taken under advisement in April 2020. It is not clear
that the court will grant such a motion or the terms and conditions
of such a motion, including limiting recovery to insurance, if such
insurance exist.
"The parties in the D/C and in the prior pending Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy have reached out to each other to determine if there is
any interest in pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the
prior Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the D/C bankruptcy insofar as the
Fireman's Fund insurance policies are concerned. Such discussions
are taking place. There are no assurances that a settlement of all
claims and controversies as relating to Waipio can be reached."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3M9FFc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Had $255MM Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation has recorded US$255 million for
estimated total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted
potential future asbestos claims through 2059, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
Carrier Global states, "The Company and its combined subsidiaries
have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos allegedly integrated into
certain of Carrier's products or business premises. While the
Company has never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporates
it in to any currently-manufactured products, certain products that
Carrier no longer manufactures contained components incorporating
asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims
have been dismissed without payment, or were covered in full or in
part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases
were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement.
The amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material
individually or in the aggregate in any period.
"The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities are based on
currently available information and assumptions that we believe are
reasonable and are made with input from outside actuarial experts.
As of March 31, 2020, the estimated range of liability to resolve
all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through
2059 is approximately US$255 million to US$290 million. Where no
amount within a range of estimates is more likely, the minimum is
accrued. We have recorded the minimum amount of US$255 million,
which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on the
Unaudited Condensed Combined Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2020.
This amount is undiscounted and excludes the Company's legal fees
to defend the asbestos claims, which will continue to be expensed
as incurred. In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery
receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately US$104 million, which is included primarily in Other
assets on the Unaudited Condensed Combined Balance Sheet as of both
March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9hK3JU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,742 Unresolved Claims at April 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 16,742 unresolved claims related to asbestos
matters 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 that in the three months ended April 3,
2020, there were 1,043 asbestos-related claims filed and 600 claims
resolved.
The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.
"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rf2Pwm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $4.8MM Liability at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has US$4,753,000 asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable 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, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually
evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related
liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence
of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the
mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its
recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases
pending against it, the status and results of broad-based
settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might
continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its
share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.
"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$3,800,000 and US$6,900,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from March
31, 2020. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
US$4,753,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2020. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced
by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing
broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the
cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12 months.
Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many
years, management believes that the potential additional costs for
claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition
of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/KuEPSs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Spent $17MM for Manhattan Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. has incurred operating costs of US$17
million as of March 31, 2020, for property damage, clean-up and
other response costs, related to the rupture of a steam main owned
by its subsidiary in Manhattan, 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 July 2018, the NYSPSC commenced an
investigation into the rupture of a CECONY steam main located on
Fifth Avenue and 21st Street in Manhattan. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response
to the incident required the closing of buildings and streets for
various periods. The NYSPSC has commenced an investigation. As of
March 31, 2020, with respect to the incident, the company incurred
operating costs of US$17 million for property damage, clean-up and
other response costs and invested US$9 million in capital and
retirement costs. The company is unable to estimate the amount or
range of its possible loss related to the incident. At March 31,
2020, the company had not accrued a liability related to the
incident."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7mOae2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 169 Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces a total of 169 asserted claims
related to asbestos exposure as of March 31, 2020, according to
Duke Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020.
The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous
claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related
to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos
in connection with construction and maintenance activities
conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of
March 31, 2020, there were 118 asserted claims for non-malignant
cases with cumulative relief sought of up to US$30 million, and 51
asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative relief sought
of up to US$17 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/OVYtnw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $596MM Reserves in March
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has recognized asbestos-related
reserves of US$596 million at March 31, 2020, according to Duke
Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized
asbestos-related reserves of US$596 million at March 31, 2020, and
US$604 million at December 31, 2019. These reserves are classified
in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within
Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate
for current and future asbestos claims through 2039 and are
recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of the uncertainties
inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe
they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that
might be incurred after 2039 related to such potential claims. It
is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in
excess of the recorded reserves.
"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insured retention in
2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by
the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for
potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical
cost claim payments is US$747 million in excess of the self-insured
retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were US$742
million at March 31, 2020, and US$742 million at December 31, 2019.
These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent
Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of
any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance
claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery
asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to
have a strong financial strength rating."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/OVYtnw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $82MM Claims Reserves at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
recorded US$82 million at March 31, 2020, for asbestos-related
bodily injury 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, "Generation maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain
facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were
previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The estimated liabilities are
recorded on an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated legal
costs associated with handling these matters, which could be
material.
"At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Exelon and Generation had
recorded estimated liabilities of approximately US$82 million and
US$83 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims. As of March 31, 2020, approximately US$27 million
of this amount related to 268 open claims presented to Generation,
while the remaining US$55 million is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/uVz4n3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $35MM to Honeywell in 1Q 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion 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 it paid Honeywell the Euro-equivalent of US$35
million in connection with the Indemnification and Reimbursement
Agreement during the first quarter of 2020.
The Company also said it made all payments under the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement under protest.
As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").
The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury actions mainly related to its legacy Bendix
friction materials ("Bendix") business. The Bendix business
manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile
asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either
performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed
brake replacements. Certain operations that were part of the
Bendix business were transferred to Garrett.
"In connection with the Spin-Off, we entered into an
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell on
September 12, 2018. As of the Spin-Off date of October 1, 2018, we
are obligated to make payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90%
of Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and accounts
payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the United
States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments
and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related
liability payments and accounts payable, in each case related to
legacy elements of the Business, including the legal costs of
defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's
net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other
recoveries associated with such liabilities. Pursuant to the terms
of this Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement, we are
responsible for paying to Honeywell such amounts, up to a cap of an
amount equal to the Euro-to-U.S. dollar exchange rate determined by
Honeywell as of a date within two business days prior to the date
of the Distribution (1.16977 USD = 1 EUR) equivalent of US$175
million in respect of such liabilities arising in any given
calendar year. The payments that we are required to make to
Honeywell pursuant to the terms of this agreement will not be
deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement provides that the
agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048
or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive year during which
certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each such year were less
than US$25 million as converted into Euros in accordance with the
terms of the agreement. During the first quarter of 2020, we paid
Honeywell the Euro-equivalent of US$35 million in connection with
the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement. Garrett has made
all payments under the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement
under protest.
"On December 2, 2019, the Company and its subsidiary, Garrett
ASASCO Inc., filed a Summons with Notice in the Commercial Division
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
(the "NY Supreme Court") commencing an action (the "Action")
against Honeywell, certain of Honeywell's subsidiaries and certain
of Honeywell's employees for declaratory judgment, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duties, corporate waste, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
"On January 15, 2020, the Company and Garrett ASASCO Inc., filed a
Complaint in the NY Supreme Court in connection with the Action.
The lawsuit arises from the Indemnification and Reimbursement
Agreement. The Company is seeking declaratory relief; compensatory
damages in an amount to be determined at trial; rescission of the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement; attorneys' fees and
costs and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper. There can be no assurance as to the time and resources
that will be required to pursue these claims or the ultimate
outcome of the lawsuit. Among other claims, Garrett asserts that
Honeywell is not entitled to indemnification because it improperly
seeks indemnification for amounts attributable to punitive damages
and intentional misconduct, and because it has failed to establish
other prerequisites for indemnification under New York law.
Specifically, the claim asserts that Honeywell has failed to
establish its right to indemnity for each and every asbestos
settlement of the thousands for which it seeks indemnification.
The Action seeks to establish that the Indemnification and
Reimbursement Agreement is not enforceable, in whole or in part.
"On March 5, 2020, Honeywell filed a "Notice of Motion to Dismiss
Garrett's Complaint." Garrett does not believe Honeywell's motion
has merit, and Garrett plans to respond. Given the New York
Supreme Court's limited operations during the Covid-19 crisis, the
timing of any decision is unknown."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/gSJ1xw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,138 PI Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation continues to face approximately 17,138 pending
asbestos personal injury actions 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.
Harsco states, "The Company is named as one of many defendants
(approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the
U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos
over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have
named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors
and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that
allegedly contained asbestos.
"The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company
product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the
asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.
"At March 31, 2020 there were approximately 17,138 pending asbestos
personal injury actions filed against the Company. Of those
actions, approximately 16,585 were filed in the New York Supreme
Court (New York County), approximately 118 were filed in other New
York State Supreme Court Counties and approximately 435 were filed
in courts located in other states.
"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.
"At March 31, 2020 approximately 16,550 of the actions filed in New
York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive
Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and
future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate
that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical
impairment. The remaining approximately 35 cases in New York
County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for
plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical
impairment.
"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions. The costs and
expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the Company's
insurers.
"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. At March 31, 2020 the Company
has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,245 cases by stipulation
or summary judgment prior to trial.
"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable
nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded
in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements
because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.
Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and
cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related actions, the Company does not expect that any
costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in
connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/hLwZR9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Had $116.3MM Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand Inc. had total litigation reserve of US$116.3
million as of March 31, 2020, with regards to potential liability
arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
Ingersoll Rand states, "The Company has been named as a defendant
in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury
lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to
asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company
is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants.
"Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the
Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if
any, were enclosed within the subject Products.
"Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold
products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure,
many of the companies that did engage in such activities or
produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to
law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in
lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related
injury.
"The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from
the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority of
plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged
exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or
for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various
potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such
matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters.
However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future
developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies
of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse
determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to
collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors,
could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the
amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" of the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets include a total litigation
reserve of US$116.3 million and US$118.1 million as of March 31,
2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, with regards to potential
liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation.
Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos
claims liability and are recorded separately as services are
incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is
possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be
material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results
of operation or liquidity.
"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary. The
Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos
related recoveries of approximately US$122.4 million as of March
31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, which was included in
"Other assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
"The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010,
in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case
number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, the
Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the
Company.
"In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the
insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess
policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's policies
that were subject to the lawsuit. Since then, the case has been
proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the
remaining insurer defendants.
"On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on the first phase of
that discovery and motions process ("Phase I"). Specifically, the
Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the Company has rights
under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and
conditions, even though the policies were sold to the Company's
former owners rather than to the Company itself.
"On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the
insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling
immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as
is normally required. The case is now proceeding through the
discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute ("Phase
II").
"A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the
costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject
of the Adams County Case.
"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently
available information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions. There are a number of key variables and assumptions
including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year,
the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of
resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available,
allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer
with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of
coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the
Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk
with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Other factors
that may affect the future liability include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made
by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal
legislation. The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the
asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an
annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of
an interim date."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XMhfGI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation still defends itself against asbestos lawsuits
related to its discontinued heat technologies segment, 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.
IntriCon states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number of
other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have
contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or
more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued
heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the
non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know
whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company.
"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.
"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.
"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.
"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9vUqkA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC still faces personal injury suits related to
asbestos exposure, 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, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal
injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While
there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were
a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California).
"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation.
"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will
result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there
can be no assurance in that regard."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3M9FFc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Still Continue
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's
Fund regarding insurance coverage on the asbestos lawsuits that the
Company still faces, 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, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.
"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's Fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution
is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for
asbestos claims against it. However, in the interim, Fireman's
Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense
costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights
may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms.
"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.
"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund
in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is
unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3M9FFc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Faces Suits at April 3
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 3, 2020, that based on information currently available, the
Company does not believe that the resolution of any currently
pending asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse
effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows.
The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the
Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos within a facility of the Company or integrated into
certain products sold or distributed by the Company and/or the
named subsidiary. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related
claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity
or have been dismissed without payment. The rest have been
resolved for amounts that are not material to the Company, either
individually or in the aggregate. Based on information currently
available, we do not believe that the resolution of any currently
pending asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/t7LOJN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $768,000 Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's subsidiary, Magnetek, recorded
approximately US$768,000 for asbestos-related liability 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, "Magnetek has been named, along with multiple
other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with
business operations previously acquired but which are no longer
owned. During Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses
produced or sold asbestos-containing products. For such claims,
Magnetek is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against
liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the
purchaser of these former business operations. The Company
aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings. Based on
actuarial information, the asbestos related liability including
legal costs is estimated to be approximately US$768,000 which has
been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial
statements at March 31, 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/KuEPSs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Still Faces PL Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, 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 it has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits.
The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In
the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/t3zd9C
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. still defends itself against numerous
lawsuits involving asbestos-related 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.
Manitowoc Co. states, "The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants. After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion of
management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows of the Company."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/qSQFHr
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Int'l Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, 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 it is a defendant in numerous lawsuits
wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos at various
locations.
The Company states, "We review and defend each case on its own
merits and make accruals based on the probability of loss and best
estimates of potential loss. We do not believe any unresolved
asserted claim will have a material adverse effect on our future
results of operations, financial position or cash flow. With
respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a
population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to
determine the probability of loss or estimate future losses. We do
not believe a risk of material loss is probable related to these
matters, and, accordingly, our reserves were not significant as of
March 31, 2020. While we continue to pursue recovery for
recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance,
indemnification arrangements and other sources, we are unable to
quantify the amount that we may recover because of the variability
in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles or the viability
of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies for the years
in question."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/lsqRiu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 596 New Claims in 1Q 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 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 received approximately 596 new
asbestos-related claims for the three months ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has
been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of
pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or
groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.
"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the
health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations)
include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty
to the plaintiffs — it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the
asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.
"As reported in the 2019 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company received approximately 3,187 asbestos-related claims in
2019. For the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 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 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and
the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are
uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UFEuRW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $121.2MM Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation recorded gross asbestosis
and environmental claim reserves of US$121.2 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's net asbestosis and environmental claim reserves
amounted to US$79.5 million as of March 31, 2020.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/IJZRhx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Had $24MM Liabilities at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation recorded US$24 million as of March 31,
2020, for estimated liabilities to resolve all pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "We have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing component
parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current products,
certain of our historical products have contained components
manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos. A
substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by
insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were
litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The
amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material
individually or in the aggregate as of and for the periods ended
March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019.
"The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately US$24 million to US$45 million. Because no amount
within the range of estimates is more likely to occur than any
other, we have recorded the minimum amount of US$24 million, which
is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our
Condensed Combined Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2020 and December
31, 2019. Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and
exclude the Business' legal fees to defend the asbestos claims
(which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In
addition, the Business has an insurance recovery receivable for
probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$5 million,
which is included in Other assets on our Condensed Combined Balance
Sheets as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/izBmCj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 119 Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. is still 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; (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/joccRZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Suit vs. Liggett Still Stayed at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 asbestos-related class action case styled,
Parsons v. AC & S Inc., wherein its subsidiary Liggett Group LLC is
a defendant, is still stayed.
The Company states, "In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a
purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia
residents who allegedly have claims arising from their exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The operative complaint seeks
to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on behalf
of the putative class. The case is stayed as a result of the
December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fxJi8F
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Has $0.5MM Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation 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 Company currently estimates
its subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
existing and anticipated future claims is approximately US$0.5
million (excluding costs of defense).
Quaker Chemical states, "The Company previously disclosed in its
2019 Form 10-K that an inactive subsidiary of the Company that was
acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.
"During the three months ended March 31, 2020, there have been no
significant changes to the facts or circumstances of this
previously disclosed matter, aside from on-going claims and routine
payments associated with this litigation.
"Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is approximately US$0.5 million (excluding costs of
defense)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xF9LgC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products 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 it is involved in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts,
including certain cases involving multiple defendants.
The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses. However, unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these
matters are scheduled to occur in 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ayYpyX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp Still Faces Falk PI Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation still faces lawsuits alleging personal injuries
due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and
drives previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "In connection with the Company's acquisition
of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the
Company with indemnification against certain products-related
asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant
to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos
claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity
obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.
"Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/FDpg7x
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Defends Stearns PI Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation still defends itself against multiple lawsuits
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches of the Company's Stearns
division, 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, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300
claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or
its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the
Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to
the Stearns lawsuits.
"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The indemnity
obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/FDpg7x
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Has PI Claims in March
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's Prager subsidiary remains the subject of
claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by
Prager, 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.
Rexnord states, "The Company's Prager subsidiary is the subject of
claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by
Prager. However, all these claims are currently on the Texas
Multi-district Litigation inactive docket, and the Company does not
believe that they will become active in the future. To date, the
Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related
to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the
combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity
obligations will cover any future costs of these matters.
"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The indemnity
obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/FDpg7x
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has Less Than 500 US Cases, 50 in Europe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. has less than 500 active and inactive asbestos-related
cases in the United States and less than 50 in Europe, 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, "For many years the Company has been and
continues to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging
health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. The Company's
current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases
in the United States and less than 50 in Europe.
"With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the
substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure
to asbestos in the Company's line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive
products although a significant number of those claims appear also
to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other
than automotive. A small number of claims have been asserted
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. The
Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it is
unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed to asbestos by the
Company's former products and that, in any event, they would not be
at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work
with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants. Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.
"With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material. A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.
"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an
increased number of these claims. The Company vigorously defends
itself against these claims as part of its ordinary course of
business. In future periods, the Company could be subject to cash
costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to the Company. To date, with respect to claims that
have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, the
Company has regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly,
the Company presently believes that these asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's annual
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jYW3uN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has Less Than 150 Claims in March
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions 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 there were fewer than 150 asbestos-related
cases as of March 31, 2020, for which the Company has the
obligation to defend and indemnify.
Univar Solutions states, "The Company is subject to liabilities
from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.
The claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation
related to Univar Solutions USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of
McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson").
Once certain conditions have been met, Univar will have the ability
to pursue insurance coverage, if any, that may be available under
McKesson's historical insurance coverage to offset the impact of
any fees, settlements, or judgments that Univar is obligated to pay
because of its obligation to defend and indemnify McKesson. As of
March 31, 2020, there were fewer than 150 asbestos-related cases
for which Univar has the obligation to defend and indemnify;
however, this number tends to fluctuate up and down over time.
Historically, the vast majority of these asbestos cases have been
dismissed without payment or with a nominal payment. While the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, it does
not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the
ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have a material
effect on its overall financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/BH7GaK
*********
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 ***