/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200623.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 23, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 125
Headlines
3A COMPOSITES: 1000+ Buildings Expected to Join Class Action
AARP INC: Friedman and McGee Appeal Decision to Ninth Circuit
ACADIA PHARMA: Continues to Defend NUPLAZID Securities Suit
AFGE: Wells et al. Sue Over Sexual Abuse, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
ALARM.COM INC: Faces Cunningham Class Suit in C.D. California
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Bid to Certify Homeowners Class in Morrow Nixed
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Remand Order in Mohammed Labor Suit
APPLE REIT: Vergara Securities Seeks to Certify Class
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Discovery Underway in 40G Solutions Suit
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Suit Over 25G Lasers Terminated
APYX MEDICAL: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation
ARIZONA: Faces Nielsen Prisoner Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
ASSURANT INC: Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Still Ongoing
AXON ENTERPRISE: Continues to Defend Richey Class Suit
BAIDU INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 22 Deadline
BAIDU INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 22 Deadline
BARNES & NOBLE: Plaintiffs' Counsel to Get $210K Attorneys' Fees
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Gutierrez Suit Granted
BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Shower to Shower(R) Suits
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Contact Lens Suit Granted Final OK
BELINDA CONSTANT: Nelson Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
BLACKROCK INC: Bid for Immediate Appeal Denied
BLACKROCK INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in iShares ETF Litigation
BUMBLE BEE: Ex-CEO Wants Class Action Attorneys Mum at Sentencing
CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY: FLSA Class Certified in Cattie Suit
CELENTANO STADTMAUER: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Klotz FDCPA Suit
CENTENE CORP: Judge Approves Hepatitis C Drug Class Suit Settlement
CENTRELINK: Ministers May Have to Give Evidence in Robo-Debt Suit
CENTURA HEALTH: Faces Walter Class Suit in District of Colorado
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Harwood Settlement Class
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Over COVID-19 Test
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Portnoy Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
COLUMBIA GAS: Gas Disaster Settlement Fees in Question
COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Still Ongoing
COMSCORE INC: Settlement Reached in Privacy Class Suit
CONN'S INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 14 Deadline
CONSOL ENERGY: Certification of Plan Participants Class Sought
CUSTOMER CONNEXX: Cadema, et al. May Substitute Plaintiff in Curley
CV SCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Smith Class Suit
DIRECTV INC: Murphy Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending
DROPBOX INC: IPO Class Suits Consolidated in California
E & A PROTECTIVE: $150K Settlement Gets Final Approval in Martinez
ENBRIDGE INC: Certification of Inspectors Class Sought
ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in Beltz
EVENFLO COMPANY: Alexie Product Liability Suit Moved to D. Mass.
EXELON CORP: Litigation Over SEC Probe Ongoing
FAMILY HEALTH: Frost Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fischer & Saunders Seek to Certify FLSA Action
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Massari Appeals Suit Ruling to Del. Sup. Ct.
FOGO DE CHAO: Certification of Rule 23 & FLSA Classes Sought
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Barbuto Notes of Aug. 10 Deadline
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 10 Deadline
FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Law Firms Awarded $6.95MM in Fees
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending
GOOGLE INC: Class Action Filed Over Google Play "Loot Box" Apps
GROUPON INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 29 Deadline
GSX TECHEDU: Pomerantz Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Class Suit Underway in Virginia
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 7 Deadline
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Probing Investors' Claims
ILLINOIS: Nowlin Sues Governor Over Ban on Gatherings
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: Cruz Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
INSULET CORP: Bid for Fees & Expenses in ATRS Suit Underway
INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: September 2 Final Fairness Hearing Set
J JACOBO FARM: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gomez Labor Suit
JOHNS HOPKINS: Faces Class Action Seeking Partial Tuition Refund
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Cache and Rapid Appeal Ruling in Reichert Suit
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Reichert Suit
KELLOGG: Class Suit Over Cereals May be Be Settled if Deal Reworked
LENDINGCLUB: Averts Securities Class Action Over FTC Probe
LHC GROUP: Rosenblatt Class Action Terminated
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Digitas Appeals Summary Judgment in Johansen Suit
LINDEN BULK: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in Castro Labor Suit
LUCKIN COFFEE: Pension Funds to Lead Securities Class Action
MARICOPA, AZ: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Isabel Civil Rights Suit
MCGRAW-HILL: Miller Alleges Price-Fixing of Course Materials
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Agreement Reached to Resolve New York Actions
METLIFE INC: Atikins Parties Agree to Drop Case
METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Suit Against MLIC Ongoing
METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing in New York
METLIFE INC: Settlement in Newman Suit Wins Approval
METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Lawsuit Ongoing
MIDLAND CREDIT: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Haworth FDCPA Suit
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Seeks Dismissal of Ex-Campaign Aides' Class Suit
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Cyrius Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NCAA: Student-Athletes Must Be Paid for Image Use, House Says
NEW AGE: Eighth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Bailey FLSA Suit
NEW YORK: Board Files 11 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit Pending
OMNIPOINT MANAGEMENT: Graves Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Harris Suit
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Enters Proposed Settlement in Riche Class Suit
PAYSIGN INC: Faces 3 Putative Class Action Suits in Nevada
PEACOCK ALLEY: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
PENNSYLVANIA: Gill Suit Seeks to Certify Class of LTCFs Residents
PHOENIX TREE: Block & Leviton Reminds of June 26 Deadline
PHOENIX TREE: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 26 Deadline
PHOENIX TREE: Klein Law Notes of June 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: CEO Takes Leave After Price-Fixing Allegations
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Line 901 Incident Trial Set for Sept. 1
POPULAR INC: Appellate Proceedings in Maura Case Underway
POPULAR INC: BPPR Seeks to Dismiss Soto-Melendez Class Action
POPULAR INC: Final Approval Hearing of Torres Pact Set for June 28
POPULAR INC: Golden Balks at Overdraft Fees Protocol
PRINCETON, NJ: Saunders Appeals Ruling in Civil Suit to 3rd Cir.
RADIANT LOGISTICS: Barahona Case Closed Upon Mutual Accord
RAMCO ENTERPRISES: Appeals Ruling in Pantoja Suit to 9th Circuit
RELIABLE PCA: Badon Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class
RESORT MARKETING: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Charvat Suit
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Golovac Seeks to File Amended Complaint
RITE AID: Judge Certifies Class of Workers in Uniform Class Suit
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Underway in California
RYDER SYSTEM: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline
RYDER SYSTEM: Pomerantz Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors
SANTANDER BANK: Parrish Files Property Suit in N.D. New York
SCWORX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 29 Deadline
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Certification of Collective Action Sought
SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing
SKECHERS USA: Setlement Reached in Guzman Class Action
SOHA DESIGNS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Faruqi Reminds of July 27 Deadline
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: In Last-Ditch Effort to Avoid Class Action
SPECTRUM BRANDS: August 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
STATE FARM: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Awarded $2.8 Million in Fees
SUBARU CORP: Recent Vehicle Recalls Turn Into Class Action Lawsuit
TABLEAU SOFTWARE: July 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
TECHNIPFMC PLC: July 25 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Findings of Facts in Securities Suit Issued
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Minnick & Perales Seek to Certify Class
TRADER JOE'S: Webb Appeals Consumer Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit
UFC: Awaits Decision on Antitrust Class Action Cert. Bid
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
UNITED STATES: Appeals Decision in ACRL Suit to Sixth Circuit
UNITED STATES: Griffin Appeals Ruling in Collection Actions Suit
UNITED STATES: Immigrants Sue Over Delayed Citizenship Ceremonies
UNITED STATES: McCutchen Appeals CFC Ruling to Federal Cir.
US CORRECTIONS: White Appeals W.D. Texas Order to Fifth Circuit
USC: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Unreturned Student Fees
UTAH: Business Hurt by Shutdown to File Class Action
VIMEO: Faces Facial Recognition BIPA Class Action in Federal Court
VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Kirschmann Civil Rights Suit
WELLS FARGO: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WELLS FARGO: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Rosen Law Announces Filing of Securities Class Action
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bryant Suit Moved From California to Nebraska
WESTGATE RESORTS: Court Narrows Document Production in Moore Suit
WOODBRIDGE VISTA: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Negligence
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 75 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR at March 29
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Curtis Class Suit
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Thompson Class Suit
WWE: Faces Investor Class Action Over Saudi Arabia Dispute
WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Ferris Securities Suit Still Pending
YELP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action in Calif.
[*] Australia's Top Business Group Fights Securities Class Actions
[*] City of Lethbridge to Join Opioid Class Action Lawsuit
[*] Class Suit v. Various Dietary Supplement Brands Pending in Fla.
[*] COVID-19 Pandemic Poses Challenges for Businesses
[*] Frivolous Lawsuits Threaten Post-COVID-19 Economic Recovery
[*] ILR Joins Australia's Class Action Litigation Debate
[*] Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss COVID-Related Class Actions
[*] Seyfarth Discuss Event-Driven Securities Litigation in COVID-19
*********
3A COMPOSITES: 1000+ Buildings Expected to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bleby, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports
that compensation in Australia's first combustible cladding class
action could be worth many billions of dollars and take in more
than 1000 buildings, according to a federal court judgment giving
the first official indication of how big the claims could be
against Alucobond manufacturer 3A Composites and supplier Halifax
Vogel Group.
Potential claimants also existed in every state and territory in
Australia, Justice Michael Wigney said in the interlocutory
judgment that rejected 3A Composites' attempt to limit the number
of members in the open-ended class. [GN]
AARP INC: Friedman and McGee Appeal Decision to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jerald Friedman and Carol McGee filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Jerald Friedman, et al. v.
AARP, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00034-DDP-PLA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge Dean P. Pregerson (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
Plaintiffs Friedman and Carol McGee commenced this putative class
action against the Defendants. In or around 2011, the Plaintiffs
purchased a type of health insurance policy, known as a "Medigap"
policy, which is designed to offer extra coverage to Medicare
beneficiaries beyond the basic Medicare benefits, including
coverage of copays and deductibles that would otherwise be the
patient's responsibility. They purchased a Medigap policy that was
endorsed by AARP, with UnitedHealth as the insurer.
The appellate case is captioned as Jerald Friedman, et al. v. AARP,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-56386, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JERALD FRIEDMAN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, and CAROL MCGEE are represented
by:
Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 E. Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: 561-750-3000
E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Susan Katina Alexander, Esq.
Andrew Love, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
One Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
E-mail: salexander@rgrdlaw.com
alove@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Ingrid M. Evans, Esq.
THE EVANS LAW FIRM
3053 Fillmore Street, Suite 236
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: 415-441-8669
E-mail: ingrid@evanslaw.com
- and -
Ex Kano Shirden Sams, II, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-201-9150
E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com
Defendants-Appellees AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES, INC., and AARP
INSURANCE PLAN are represented by:
John W. Amberg, Esq.
Sarah Burwick, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: 310-576-2100
E-mail: jwamberg@bclplaw.com
sarah.burwick@bclplaw.com
- and -
Darci F. Madden, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Russell, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP
211 North Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: 314-259-2366
E-mail: dfMadden@bclplaw.com
jsrussell@bclplaw.com
Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and UNITEDHEALTH
CARE INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:
Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
Meaghan McLaine VerGow, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: 202-383-5327
E-mail: bboyle@omm.com
mvergow@omm.com
- and -
Brittany Allison Rogers, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-430-6000
E-mail: brogers@omm.com
- and -
Jennifer Sokoler, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 212-326-2000
E-mail: jsokoler@omm.com
ACADIA PHARMA: Continues to Defend NUPLAZID Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647,
on account of regulatory disclosures related to NUPLAZID.
Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity
about NUPLAZID, three purported company stockholders filed putative
securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers.
Thereafter, several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff.
On January 3, 2019, the Court consolidated the cases under the
caption In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 18-cv-01647, and took the lead plaintiff motions under
submission.
On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 15,
2019.
The consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business, operations, and prospects by failing to
disclose that adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID
threatened initial and continuing Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approval, and by failing to disclose that the Company engaged
in business practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
June 7, 2019 and the lead plaintiff filed an opposition on July 23,
2019. Defendants filed a reply on August 22, 2019.
On November 12, 2019, the Court determined that the motion to
dismiss was suitable for resolution without oral argument and took
the motion hearing off calendar.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs
that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system
disorders. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Diego, California.
AFGE: Wells et al. Sue Over Sexual Abuse, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, ANNETTE WELLS, PAUL VAUGHAN, WAQAS
KALYAR, FAHIM JAVED, and JOCELYNN JOHNSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, JEFFERY DAVID COX, SR., EVERETT
KELLEY, ERIC BUNN, VINCENT CASTELLANO, PHIL GLOVER, DANNY DOYLE,
ARNOLD SCOTT, CHERYL ELIANO, GERALD SWANKE, GEORGE MCCUBBIN, JOSEPH
FLYNN, DAVID BORER, BRIAN DEWYNGAERT, JOHN and JANE DOES AFGE
Officers, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01558 (D.C., June 13, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for sexual assault and
battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; physical
injury; racial and/or religious discrimination; breach of fiduciary
duty; sexual harassment; hostile work environment based on sex,
race and religion; and intentional tort.
According to the complaint, Defendant Cox violated his oath of
office and his fiduciary duties at the American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE) by using union-provided limousine
services to go to strip clubs and bars and procure male prostitutes
and to sexually assault, sexually harass and racially discriminate
against Plaintiff Wells' son, Plaintiff John Doe #1, and Plaintiff
John Doe #2, and also to racially discriminate against Plaintiffs
Waqas Kalyar, Fahim Javed, and Jocelynn Johnson. The Plaintiffs
also filed complaint against other AFGE officials due to breach of
their fiduciary duties to the labor organization by failing to
report, investigate and take disciplinary action after receiving
numerous sexual and other misconduct complaints filed against
Defendant Cox; failing to process internal disciplinary charges
filed against him by Plaintiff Wells on February 13, 2020, related
to his sexual and other misconduct; and failing to file a lawsuit
against him to account for and recover all AFGE funds that he
improperly used to go to strip clubs and bars, procure male
prostitutes and sexually abuse others. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs suffered damages including,
but without limitation, deprivation of income and benefits, loss of
opportunity, severe emotional distress, personal injuries, pain,
suffering, mental anguish, humiliation and damage to reputation and
career.
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is a federal
employee union with its principal place of business located at 80 F
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marlene Morten, Esq.
3825 South Capitol Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20032
Telephone: (202) 379-4806
E-mail: kemimorten@gmail.com
- and –
Donna Clancy, Esq.
THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C.
40 Wall Street, 61st Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 747-1744
E-mail: dhc@dhclancylaw.com
ALARM.COM INC: Faces Cunningham Class Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALARM.COM,
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Craig Cunningham, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALARM.COM,
Incorporated, and ALARM.COM Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:20-mc-00019-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va., June 15, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Miscellaneous.
Alarm.com, Inc., is a US-based technology company that provides
cloud based services for remote control, home automation and
monitoring services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Bredehoft, Esq.
KAUFMAN & CANOLES PC
150 W Main St., Suite 2100
PO Box 3037
Norfolk, VA 23510
Phone: (757) 624-3000
Fax: (888) 360-9092
Email: jmbredehoft@kaufcan.com
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Bid to Certify Homeowners Class in Morrow Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARA MORROW and BENNY MORROW, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE
INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:16-CV-137
(HL) (M.D. Ga.), Judge Hugh Lawson of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.
The Plaintiffs own a home in Calhoun, Georgia. They insured their
home under a homeowners insurance policy issued by the Defendants.
Their home has sustained two direct physical losses. First, on
April 15, 2010, an explosion occurred at a neighboring property.
According to the Plaintiffs, the explosion caused structural damage
to their home. They made a claim on their homeowners policy, and
the Defendants paid them to repair the damage. Then, on July 14,
2015, the Plaintiffs' home suffered a second direct loss, this time
involving water damage and mold. Again, they submitted claims on
their homeowners policy, and the Defendants paid to repair and
remediate the damage. The Plaintiffs now allege that despite the
2010 and 2015 repairs, the home's fair market value suffered a
diminution in value due to stigma following the physical damage.
Both parties acknowledge that the Defendants never compensated the
Plaintiffs for the alleged diminished value of their home. The
parties' dispute arises out of the insurance policy's language.
The Defendants deny that the policy covers diminution in value due
to stigma. The Plaintiffs argue that under Georgia law, the policy
covers diminution in value and imposes a duty to assess for
diminished value. The Plaintiffs bring two breach of contract
claims: Defendants failed (1) to assess the diminished value of
their home due to stigma, and (2) to pay for such diminution in
value.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. The
Motion seeks only to certify their claim for the Defendants'
alleged failure to assess for diminished value and their claim for
attorneys' fees and costs. They do not seek to certify a class for
the Defendants' alleged failure to pay diminished value. They also
request certification of their request for attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiffs define the class as follows:
All persons formerly or currently insured under homeowners
insurance policies issued by Allstate Indemnity Company that
provide coverage for property located in Georgia who, from
April 14, 2010, through the Court's order certifying a class,
presented first-party claims arising from direct physical
losses to their properties as a result of water, fire, mold, or
foundational/structural damage that Allstate Indemnity Company
accepted as covered but wherein diminished value was not
assessed for or paid in connection with the adjustment of such
claims.
On review, Judge Lawson finds that the Plaintiffs have not
satisfied the requirements under Rule 23 to justify class
certification. No uniform resolution is possible among the
proposed class because Anderson -- Anderson v. Am. Family Ins. Co.,
No. 18-14772, 2020 WL 550789, at *4 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) --
indicates that failure to assess claims depend, in part, on whether
a Defendant can demonstrate that no diminished value occurred.
Likewise, Judge Lawson also denied class certification of the
Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs because
adjudication of the class members' claims requires individualized
inquiries.
In sum, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/uawzI4 from Leagle.com.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Remand Order in Mohammed Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant American Airlines, Inc., filed an appeal from the
District Court's order remanding the putative class action entitled
Hasim Mohammed v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No.
5:19-cv-01540-EJD, to the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Santa Clara.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, American
Airlines removed the case (filed on Feb. 19, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 19CV342788) from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara County to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.
The complaint asserts alleged violations of California's meal and
rest break, recordkeeping, and timeliness of wage payment laws.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative
"Hourly Employee Class" defined as "all persons employed by
Defendants and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third
parties in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the
Relevant Time Period."
The appellate case is captioned as Hasim Mohammed v. American
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 19-80155, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent HASIM A, MOHAMMED, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
Defendant-Petitioner AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., is represented by:
Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
Susannah Howard, Esq.
Kristin M. MacDonnell, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-984-8700
E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com
showard@omm.com
kmacdonnell@omm.com
APPLE REIT: Vergara Securities Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STEVE VERGARA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE REIT NINE, INC.
now known as APPLE HOSPITATLITY REIT, INC, Case No.
1:19-cv-02027-DLI-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons and entities that participated in the A-9
DRIP between April 8, 2013 through the end of A-9's
Dividend Reinvestment Plan and received A-9 common stock
in lieu of the declared cash dividend at a value of $10.25
per share";
2.appointing the Plaintiff Steve Vergara as Class
Representative; and
3. appointing the law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as
Class Counsel.
The Defendant is a publicly traded real estate investment trust
that owns a portfolio of upscale, select service hotels.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
Brittany Bowman, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone : (212) 421-6492
Facsimile : (212) 421-6553
E-mail: lee@ fclasslaw.com
brittany@sfclasslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron Fong Jaroff, Esq.
Elizabeth F. Edwards, Esq.
Stanley A. Roberts, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Gateway Plaza
800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Discovery Underway in 40G Solutions Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that fact discovery is
scheduled to be completed by October 1, 2020, in the putative
consolidated class action suit related to the company's 40G
solutions.
On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the company and two of
its officers. The matter is captioned, Mona Abouzied v. Applied
Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J.
Murry, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02399.
The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
the company's announcement on August 3, 2017 that "the company see
softer than expected demand for its 40G solutions with one of its
large customers that will offset the sequential growth and
increased demand the company expect in 100G."
A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.
On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel.
Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
on March 6, 2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified
damages and other relief.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018, which was
denied on March 28, 2019.
The company dispute the allegations, and it intends to continue to
vigorously defend against these claims.
On May 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated class action complaint for the purpose of adding
named Plaintiffs Richard Hamilton, Kenneth X. Luthy, Roy H. Cetlin,
and John Kugel (together with Lead Plaintiff Lawrence Rougier,
"Plaintiffs") to the case.
The court granted the motion on May 16, 2019. The substantive
allegations in the Plaintiffs' operative second amended
consolidated class action complaint remain unchanged. On May 28,
2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify the case as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
seeking appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives and Levi
& Korsinsky as class counsel.
On July 12, 2019, the company filed a response in opposition to the
motion for class certification, and on August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed their reply brief.
On November 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification be granted, to which the company filed written
objections on November 27, 2019.
On December 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to
the company's objections, and on December 16, 2019, the company
filed its reply brief. The court entered an order adopting the
Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation over the company's
objections on December 20, 2019.
Thereafter, on January 3, 2020, the company filed a petition for
permission to appeal the class certification order to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to the company's petition
on January 13, 2020, and the company filed a reply brief in further
support of the petition for permission to appeal on January 21,
2020.
On January 23, 2020, the company filed an unopposed motion in the
Fifth Circuit requesting that the court stay further proceedings
for 90 days to allow the parties to conduct settlement
negotiations. The Fifth Circuit entered an order granting the
motion on January 24, 2020.
On April 7, 2020, by joint motion of the parties, the Fifth Circuit
extended the order for another 40 days, up to and including June 2,
2020.
The case is currently in the discovery phase, and fact discovery is
scheduled to be completed by October 1, 2020.
Applied Optoelectronics said, "At this stage, we are not yet able
to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter."
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and
is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Suit Over 25G Lasers Terminated
--------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a consolidated class
action suit related to its 25G lasers has been terminated.
On October 1, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the company and two of
its officers in Gaurav Taneja v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Thompson Lin, and Stefan Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-03544.
The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and it chief financial officer, arising out of
the company's announcement on September 28, 2018 that the company
was revising its third quarter revenue guidance due to "an issue
with a small percentage of 25G lasers within a specific customer
environment."
This case was consolidated with two identical cases styled Davin
Pokoik v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and
Stefan J. Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-3722 and Stephen McGrath v.
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and Stefan J.
Murry.
Mark Naglich was appointed as Lead Plaintiff on the consolidated
matter on January 4, 2019. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint on March 5, 2019, and the company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on May 6,
2019.
On January 29, 2020, the district court entered an order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the amended
consolidated complaint with prejudice.
The court also entered an order denying Lead Plaintiff's request
for leave to further amend the complaint, and entered a final
judgment terminating the case.
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.
APYX MEDICAL: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., announces investigation into possible
breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of Apyx's officers and/or
directors.
The investigation relates to a securities class action lawsuit
alleging that certain officers made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failures to disclose that the clinical study on
the use of J-Plasma for dermal resurfacing had not met its primary
efficacy endpoint. On March 11, 2020, the court denied Apyx's
motion to dismiss the securities class action complaint, finding
the complaint adequately alleged that the company and its officers
violated federal securities laws.
If you are an investor, and would like additional information about
the investigation, contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
Tel: 516-493-9780
Fax: 516-280-7376
E-mail: info@jlclasslaw.com
ARIZONA: Faces Nielsen Prisoner Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shinn. The case is
styled as Jeffrey Nielsen, Larry Hilgendorf, Terry Brownell,
Arizona State Conference of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People as an organization and on behalf of
its members, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. David Shinn, Director, Arizona Department of
Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry, in his official capacity,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01182-GMS-JZB (D. Ariz., June 15, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
David Shinn is appointed as the director of the Arizona Department
of Corrections.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Baer, Esq.
FREDRIKSON & BYRON PA
4000 Pillsbury Center
200 S 6th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 492-7000
- and -
John R. Dacey, Esq.
Robert E. Craig, Esq.
ABOLISH PRIVATE PRISONS
125 N 2nd St., Ste. 110
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: (602) 737-0600
Email: johndacey@abolishprivateprisons.org
- and -
Lousene M. Hoppe, Esq.
FREDRIKSON & BYRON PA
200 S 6th St., Ste. 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 492-7402
Fax: (612) 492-7077
Email: lhoppe@fredlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zlaket, Esq.
THOMAS A. ZLAKET PLLC
310 S Williams Blvd., Ste. 170
Tucson, AZ 85711
Phone: (520) 750-0250
Fax: (520) 750-0243
Email: tom@zlaketlaw.com
ASSURANT INC: Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend lawsuits
related to lender-placed insurance programs.
The Company is involved in a variety of litigation and legal and
regulatory proceedings relating to its current and past business
operations and, from time to time, it may become involved in other
such actions.
In particular, the Company is a defendant in class actions in a
number of jurisdictions regarding its Lender-placed Insurance
programs.
These cases assert a variety of claims under a number of legal
theories. The plaintiffs typically seek premium refunds and other
relief.
The Company continues to defend itself vigorously in these class
actions.
The Company has participated and may participate in settlements on
terms that the Company considers reasonable.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Assurant, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides risk management
solutions for housing and lifestyle markets in North America, Latin
America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company operates through
three segments: Global Housing, Global Lifestyle, and Global
Preneed. The company was formerly known as Fortis, Inc. and changed
its name to Assurant, Inc. in February 2004. Assurant, Inc. was
founded in 1892 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
AXON ENTERPRISE: Continues to Defend Richey Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Axon Enterprise, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Douglas Richey.
The company is a defendant in a consumer class action lawsuit filed
in the District of Nevada on April 9, 2019 by Douglas Richey.
The case alleges the TASER Pulse, X2 and X26P conducted electrical
devices (CEDs) have a faulty safety switch based on Richey's Pulse
allegedly discharging inside its neoprene case in a jacket pocket
without injury.
Any such discharge was likely due to static electricity, as
disclosed in our consumer warnings.
Axon said, "We will vigorously defend this claim and the propriety
of any class certification."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells conducted
electrical weapons (CEWs) worldwide. The company operates through
two segments, TASER Weapons, and Software and Sensors. Axon
Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.
BAIDU INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on June 15 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
Baidu, Inc. ("Baidu" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:BIDU) for violations
of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 16,
2019 and April 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 22, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Baidu failed to maintain compliance with
Chinese laws and regulations with its feed services. The Company
was at a heightened risk of enforcement action by the Chinese
government based on the noncompliance. This threat meant that the
Company's revenues derived from online marketing were likely not to
be sustainable. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about Baidu, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
Cell: 424-303-1964
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
BAIDU INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 15 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bed-bath-beyond-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7353&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020
Class Period: October 2, 2019 - February 11, 2020
Allegations against BBBY include that: (1) due to "aggressive
disposition of inventory," the Company lacked sufficient inventory
in key categories to support holiday sales; (2) the Company's
internal control over inventory levels and financial reporting was
not effective; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; 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.
Baidu, Inc. (BIDU)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7353&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 22, 2020
Class Period: March 16, 2019 - April 7, 2020
Allegations against BIDU include 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)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/iqiyi-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7353&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020
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.
Allegations against IQ include that: (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.
To learn more, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at (212) 425-1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. (212) 425-1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
BARNES & NOBLE: Plaintiffs' Counsel to Get $210K Attorneys' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP by order of the Chancery Court of the State
of Delaware, served notice on all former shareholders of Barnes &
Noble, Inc., regarding the payment by Barnes & Noble of attorneys'
fees for its role as plaintiffs' counsel in a class action
lawsuit.
On June 7, 2019, Barnes & Noble, Inc. announced that it had entered
into a definitive agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with affiliates of Elliott Advisors (UK) Limited
("Elliott") pursuant to which, in exchange for $6.50 per share in
cash in a tender offer (the "Tender Offer"), they would acquire
Barnes & Noble (the "Transaction").
On July 9, 2019, affiliates of Elliott commenced the Tender Offer,
and Barnes & Noble filed a recommendation statement on Schedule
14D-9 (the "Recommendation Statement") with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").
On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff Richard Scarantino ("Scarantino") filed
a Class Action Complaint (the "Scarantino Action"), and on July 18,
2019, Plaintiff David Shaev ("Shaev") filed a Class Action
Complaint (the "Shaev Action"), both in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "District of Delaware").
Both Scarantino and Shaev alleged violations of Sections 14(e),
14(d) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to
the Transaction.
On July 18, 2019, Plaintiff Mitul Karia filed a Verified Class
Action Complaint (the "Karia Action," and with the Scarantino
Action and the Shaev Action, the "Actions") in the Delaware Court
of Chancery (the "Court of Chancery"). Karia alleged that the
Board of Directors of Barnes & Noble (the"Board") breached its
fiduciary duties to Barnes & Noble's stockholders by causing the
filing of the Recommendation Statement with material misstatements
and omissions and that affiliates of Elliott aided and abetted the
Board's purported breaches. Karia also sought to enjoin the Tender
Offer.
On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff Frank Ferreiro ("Ferreiro") filed a
Class Action Complaint (the "Ferreiro Action") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York ("Southern
District of New York"), alleging violations of Sections 14(e),
20(a) and that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to Barnes &
Noble's stockholders by causing the filing of the Recommendation
Statement with material misstatements and omissions.
On July 26, 2019, in response to the lawsuits, Barnes & Noble filed
a Schedule 14D-9/A containing supplemental disclosures that
addressed the issues raised in the Actions (the "Supplemental
Disclosures") (accessible on the SEC's website at
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890491/000119312519203182/d770574dsc14d9a.htm).
This form supplemented the original Recommendation Statement to
include certain additional information which mooted the claims
asserted by Karia, Scarantino Shaev, and Ferreiro (collectively,
"Plaintiffs").
On July 29, 2019, Scarantino and Shaev filed Notices of Voluntary
Dismissal in the District of Delaware, voluntarily dismissing the
Scarantino and Shaev Actions with prejudice as to Scarantino and
Shaev only, and without prejudice to the putative class.
On July 31, 2019, Ferreiro filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in
the Southern District of New York, voluntarily dismissing the
Ferreiro Action with prejudice as to Ferreiro only, and without
prejudice to the putative class.
On August 6, 2019, the Tender Offer expired, and the Transaction
was thereafter consummated.
On August 29, 2019, the Court of Chancery entered an order
dismissing the Karia Action and the claims asserted therein, with
prejudice as to Karia only, and without prejudice as to all other
members of the putative class, and retaining jurisdiction of the
Karia Action for the purpose of determining an application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in
connection with the Supplemental Disclosures.
Only after the Actions were dismissed did the parties commence and
engage in discussions regarding payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses to Plaintiffs' counsel and the amount thereof. After
negotiations, the defendants in the Actions agreed to make an
all-inclusive fee and expense payment to Plaintiffs' counsel in the
amount of $210,000 to resolve any application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be made by Plaintiffs' counsel in
the Actions. This amount will be paid by Barnes & Noble, Inc. The
Court of Chancery has not been asked to review and will pass no
judgment on, the payment of fees and expenses or its
reasonableness.
If you have any questions regarding the litigation, contact:
O'Kelly & Ernst, LLC
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
824 Market Street, Suite 1001A
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 778-4000
Web site: http://www.oelegal.com/
- and -
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel: (202) 524-4290
Web site: http://www.zlk.com/
[GN]
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Gutierrez Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion seeking dismissal of
the proposed class action suit entitled, Gutierrez, et al. v.
Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL, has
been granted.
On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their
sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated
Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act.
This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US on June 28, 2019 and
was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending.
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, and reimbursement/restitution.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, which was
granted on April 27, 2020 without prejudice.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Shower to Shower(R) Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that in accordance with an
indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson will continue to
vigorously defend Bausch in each of the remaining actions related
to Shower to Shower(R) body powder product, that are not
voluntarily dismissed or subject to a grant of summary judgment.
Since 2016, the Company has been named in a number of product
liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower(R) body powder
product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to
dismissals, only 12 of such product liability suits currently
remain pending.
Potential liability (including its attorneys' fees and costs)
arising out of these remaining suits is subject to full
indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the
Company, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson &
Johnson.
Ten of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs allege that
the use of Shower to Shower(R) caused the plaintiffs to develop
ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. The allegations in these cases
include failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect,
negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied
warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent
misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of consortium and/or
punitive damages.
The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical
expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or
compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and
discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life.
Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
Additionally, two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada
against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court
of Quebec), on behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson
& Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower(R).
The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain
health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to
properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to
remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec).
The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general,
special, compensatory and punitive damages.
Bausch said, "In accordance with the indemnification agreement,
Johnson & Johnson will continue to vigorously defend the Company in
each of the remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or
subject to a grant of summary judgment."
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Contact Lens Suit Granted Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies 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 has granted
final approval of the settlement agreement in the class action suit
entitled, In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK.
Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L Inc.,
three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens
distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain
contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies,
and alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.
These cases have been consolidated in the Middle District of
Florida by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, under
the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK.
On August 19, 2019, B&L Inc. entered into a settlement, subject to
court approval, by which it agreed to pay $10 million to fully and
finally resolve plaintiffs' class claims against B&L Inc. in the
case.
On October 8, 2019, the settlement agreement was preliminarily
approved by the court.
A final fairness hearing regarding the settlement was held on
February 25, 2020.
On March 4, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement agreement in all respects and dismissed the case with
prejudice as to B&L Inc., except as to any claim by persons who
validly and timely requested exclusion from the settlement
classes.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BELINDA CONSTANT: Nelson Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TAMARA G. NELSON and TIMOTHEA
RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. BELINDA C. CONSTANT, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-14581-JVM (E.D. La.), Timothea N. Richardson asks the Court
for an order:
1. certifying a Settlement Class represented by herself,
consisting of:
"persons who were denied participation in, terminated
from, or threatened with termination from the Deferred
Prosecution program due to their inability to pay program
fees"; and
2. appointing her counsel as class counsel in this action
pursuant to Rule 23(g).[CC]
The Plaintiff Ms. Richarson is represented by:
Eric A. Foley, Esq.
James W. Craig, Esq.
Elizabeth Cumming, Esq.
RODERICK & SOLANGE
MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 620-2259
Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org
jim.craig@macarthurjustice.org
elizabeth.cumming@macarthurjustice.org
BLACKROCK INC: Bid for Immediate Appeal Denied
----------------------------------------------
BlackRock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit has denied plaintiffs' request to immediately appeal
the class certification ruling in the Collective Trust Funds (CTFs)
litigation.
On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust
Company, N.A. ("BTC"), the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and
various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California by a former
employee on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries in the
BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") from April 5, 2011 to
the present.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their
duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things,
offering investment options that were overly expensive,
underperformed unaffiliated peer funds, focused disproportionately
on active versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated
in investment options managed by BlackRock.
On October 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which, among other things, added as defendants certain current and
former members of the BlackRock Retirement and Investment
Committees. The Amended Complaint also included a new purported
class claim on behalf of investors in certain Collective Trust
Funds ("CTFs") managed by BTC.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that BTC, as fiduciary to the
CTFs, engaged in self-dealing by, most significantly, selecting
itself as the securities lending agent on terms that the plaintiffs
claim were excessive. The Amended Complaint also alleged that
BlackRock took undue risks in its management of securities lending
cash reinvestment vehicles during the financial crisis.
On August 23, 2018, the court granted permission to the plaintiffs
to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which added as
defendants the BlackRock, Inc. Management Development and
Compensation Committee, the Plan’s independent investment
consultant and the Plan's Administrative Committee and its members.
On October 22, 2018, BlackRock filed a motion to dismiss the SAC,
and on June 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify both the Plan and the CTF classes.
On September 3, 2019, the court granted BlackRock's motion to
dismiss part of the plaintiffs' claim seeking to recover alleged
losses in the securities lending vehicles but denied the motion to
dismiss in all other respects. On February 11, 2020, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the CTF class and granted
their motion to certify the Plan class.
On April 27, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs' request to
immediately appeal the class certification ruling.
The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit.
BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to
institutional clients and to retail investors through various
investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers
risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies,
and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New
York.
BLACKROCK INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in iShares ETF Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in in the class action suit
related to iShares(R) exchange-traded funds (iShares ETFs) have
asked the California Supreme Court to hear a further appeal from an
order dismissing the case.
On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of its
advisory subsidiaries, and the directors and certain officers of
the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in California state court.
The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the
"ETFs"), and alleges the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by
the ETFs the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the event of a
"flash crash."
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission damages.
The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on
January 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On April 27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the
plaintiffs' claims. On September 18, 2017, the court issued a
decision dismissing the remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day
bench trial.
On December 1, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their
lawsuit and, on January 23, 2020, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
Plaintiffs have asked the California Supreme Court to hear a
further appeal of the dismissal.
The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit.
BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to
institutional clients and to retail investors through various
investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers
risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies,
and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New
York.
BUMBLE BEE: Ex-CEO Wants Class Action Attorneys Mum at Sentencing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that ex-Bumble Bee
CEO Chris Lischewski, who faces up to 10 years in prison for his
role in a canned tuna price-fixing scheme, is asking a San
Francisco federal judge not to let his sentencing hearing on June
16 devolve into "an unfocused spectacle" by having the attorneys
leading a parallel consumer class action speak.
"Permitting them to rail against Mr. Lischewski, and join the
government's call for an over-the-top sentence, borders on the
barbaric," Lischewski says in court papers filed June 12 in the
Northern District of California.
Their "invective" would pose an "obvious and palpable" risk of
prejudice, the filing says.
Lischewski was convicted by a federal jury in December for his role
in the scheme. Judge Edward M. Chen upheld the conspiracy verdict
in March.
The parallel civil lawsuit is part of a wave of price-fixing cases
involving livestock and protein -- including chicken, beef, pork,
turkey, and salmon -- amid calls from top Democrats to break up
"big ag."
Bumble Bee, Starkist Co., and Chicken of the Sea have been hit with
eight- and nine-figure fines -- including one that drove Bumble Bee
into bankruptcy -- after pleading guilty to criminal charges.
Starkist and Lischewski are also facing criminal charges in
Washington state.
Be that as it may, Lischewski says in the new court filing, the
civil plaintiffs' attorneys have no business speaking at his
criminal sentencing under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
Neither the lawyers themselves nor their clients are actually
"victims" of his crimes, given that the government, "throughout
this case," repeatedly "disclaimed any attempt to prove harm,"
according to the filing.
Nor can the jury verdict be read to imply a finding of harm, since
a person can be guilty of conspiring to fix prices whether he
succeeds or not, Lischewski argues.
The "only purpose for offering up these lawyers at sentencing is to
inject a theory of customer and consumer harm that the government
was unable to prove," the filing says. "All that the jury found was
that Mr. Lischewski joined the conspiracy."
Any harm the scheme may have done is a matter for the civil case,
according to the brief.
Lischewski's conviction is widely seen as a shot across the bow of
top chicken and beef executives as the Justice Department
investigates both industries. The DOJ recently filed criminal
price-fixing charges against the CEO of Pilgrim's Pride Corp. and
three other executives.
Lischewskis is represented by Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP. The
civil plaintiffs' attorneys are Hausfeld LLP, Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca LLP, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Hertz LLP, and Siegel
Hanson LLP. The government is represented by the U.S. attorney's
office for the Northern District of California.
The case is United States v. Lischewski, N.D. Cal., No. 18-cr-203,
objection filed 6/12/20. [GN]
CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY: FLSA Class Certified in Cattie Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CASEY CATTIE, On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY
EMPLOYEES LLC and CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LLC, d/b/a
BOBBY HOTEL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00237 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
William L. Campbell Jr. entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class in accordance with
Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act definedd as:
"all current and former servers and bartenders employed by
Defendants at the Bobby Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee who
were paid an hourly rate lower than $7.25";
2. approving a Notice and Consent Form for distribution to
potential Opt-In Plaintiffs and shall be used to opt into
this action;
3. directing the Defendants, within 21 days of the date this
Order is entered, to provide to the Plaintiff's counsel an
Excel spreadsheet containing the name, last known mailing
address(es), last known e-mail address(es), last known
telephone number(s), and dates of employment for each
individual who meets the class definition;
4. directing the Plaintiff and her counsel to issue the
approved Notice and Consent Form to potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail to last known mailing
address(es), electronic mail to last known email
address(es), and Short Message Service (SMS) message to
last known telephone number(s) within seven days of
receipt of the Class List at their initial expense without
prejudice to seeking reimbursement and shall include a
self-addressed, postage-prepaid envelope with the initial
mailing.
Castlerock Hospitality is a Nashville-based property development
and management company specializing in hotels, restaurants and
residences. The Westin Nashville Hotel in the SoBro neighborhood,
Bobby Hotel in Downtown Nashville, and the Oak Steakhouse across
from Music City Center are the first of many hospitality and
residential projects to come.[CC]
CELENTANO STADTMAUER: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Klotz FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Terry L. Klotz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Terry Klotz v. Celentano Stadtmauer and
Walentowicz, LLP, et al., Case No. 2-19-cv-00248, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action
concerns the letters that the Defendant, a collection law firm,
mailed to the Plaintiff on Jan. 8, 2018, and March 26, 2018. The
letters refer to an outstanding debt for medical services the
Plaintiff's late husband, Peter M. Klotz, received from Hackensack
University Medical Center. Despite informing the Defendant that
her husband had his own insurance, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant continued its collection efforts.
On Jan. 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a one-count, putative
class-action complaint alleging that the Defendant violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
The appellate case is captioned as Terry Klotz v. Celentano
Stadtmauer and Walentowicz, LLP, et al., Case No. 19-3703, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant TERRY L. KLOTZ, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
Evan W. Lehrer, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: 201-273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
elehrer@kimlf.com
- and -
Ronald I. Levine, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD I. LEVINE
210 River Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: 201-489-7900
E-mail: ronlevinelawfirm@gmail.com
Defendant-Appellee CELENTANO STADTMAUER AND WALENTOWICZ LLP is
represented by:
Lawrence J. Bartel, Esq.
Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street, Suite 610
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-717-4022
E-mail: lbartel@grsm.com
amschwartz@grsm.com
CENTENE CORP: Judge Approves Hepatitis C Drug Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Florida federal judge has approved a
settlement ending a class action by hepatitis C patients who said
health insurance company Centene Corp. denied them coverage of
drugs that cure the liver disease. [GN]
CENTRELINK: Ministers May Have to Give Evidence in Robo-Debt Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Estcourt, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
senior ministers may be hauled into court and forced to give
evidence as part of the massive robo-debt class action brought
against the federal government.
In a directions hearing in the Federal Court on June 16, lawyers
representing Centrelink recipients who were sent more than 500,000
unlawful debt notices said they are considering bringing a
misfeasance in public office claim by alleging some ministers,
including Government Services Minister Stuart Robert, were acting
in bad faith.
The robo-debt scheme was scrapped in May, with the Commonwealth
announcing it would pay back $721 million to about 373,000 people.
The saga could also become even more expensive for the government,
with Federal Court judge Justice Bernard Murphy suggesting at the
hearing it was likely the government would also have to refund the
interest it made on debts collected.
Government lawyer Michael Hodge, QC, said the government intended
to argue against paying interest. Justice Murphy replied that the
government may be "obligated to pay interest".
"You're being sued for the debt plus interest. You're acknowledging
the debt's raised illegally . . . how do you avoid interest?" he
said.
Justice Murphy and lawyers for the government also clashed over
discrepancies between in-court filings and public statements the
government has made.
In its defence to the court, the Commonwealth has admitted only
that debts wholly identified through robo-debt are invalid. In
public statements, government officials admitted debts both wholly
and partly identified through robo-debt are invalid.
Justice Murphy told Mr Hodge that he, as a Federal Court judge,
"shouldn't be forced to make public announcements" about government
policy from the bench.
"Your Honour is very aggressively raising issues about the
Commonwealth's defence," Mr Hodge replied.
"You ought to reconsider that I'm very aggressively attacking your
defence," Justice Murphy said. "All I'm saying to you, Mr Hodge, is
that your pleading needs to reflect what you're asking the court to
account of in this case."
He also ordered the government to update its defence to match
public announcements.
The politics underpinning the class action remain tense as the
government issued an apology, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison
saying he regrets any hardship that was caused by the scheme.
Mr Hodge pointed out that if government ministers were required to
give evidence, they would have to obtain their own legal
representation, which could cause the trial to drag on.
Bernard Quinn, QC, acting for the claimants, told the court he
might also argue for the imposition of exemplary damages, a measure
designed to punish the government and deter it from engaging in
similar behaviour in future.
Mr Quinn, who labelled the program "parasitic", told the court that
"swift" justice was important to a subsection of the community
impacted by the debts who were vulnerable already.
"The Commonwealth hasn't elected it will cough up any of the
benefits they've had through the use of the money," he said.
The government is also asking for several hundred documents that
detail aspects of the robo-debt scheme to be prevented from being
handed over because it is prejudicial to the public interest.
The case looks set to go to trial over three weeks, starting in
mid-September. [GN]
CENTURA HEALTH: Faces Walter Class Suit in District of Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centura Health
Corporation. The case is styled as Franklin E. Walter, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Centura Health
Corporation, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-01752 (D. Colo., June 15, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Centura Health has 21,000+ mission-centered professionals sharing
its ministry. Centura Health's mission is to extend the healing
ministry of Christ by caring for those who are ill and by nurturing
the health of the people in its communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordon Robert Harlan, Esq.
HARLAN LAW, PC
2404 Broadway, 2nd Floor
Diego, CA 92102
Phone: (619) 870-0802
Fax: (619) 870-0815
Email: jordon@harlanpc.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Harwood Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH HARWOOD AND ZANE
VANSELOW, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY ENABLED
SERVICES, LLC, fka PST SERVICES, INC., MILWAUKEE RADIOLOGISTS,
LTD., S.C., AND MIDWEST AREA PHYSICIANS, LLC., the Defendants; and
ACUITY, A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Intervening Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-CV-01941-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman
entered an order:
1. certifying a class -- for settlement purposes only --
defined as:
"any patient or Person authorized by the patient who paid
a fee for the patient's healthcare billing records in
excess of that permitted by Wisconsin law and who is
identified in the Attorney Billing Records Request Data
attached to the Settlement Agreement."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) the Defendants,
any predecessor, subsidiary, sister and/or merged
companies, and all of the present or past directors,
officers, employees, principals, shareholders and/or
agents of the Defendants; (ii) Any and all Federal, State,
County and/or Local Governments, including, but not
limited to their departments, agencies, divisions,
bureaus, boards, sections, groups, councils and/or any
other subdivision, and any claim that such governmental
entities may have, directly or indirectly; (iii) Any
currently-sitting Wisconsin state court Judge or Justice,
or any federal court Judge currently or previously sitting
in Wisconsin, and the current spouse and all other persons
within the third degree of consanguinity to such
judge/justice; and (iv) Any law firm of record in these
proceedings, including any attorney of record in these
proceedings;
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for
purposes of settlement;
3. appointing the attorneys at Welcenbach Law Offices, S.C.,
Legg Law Firm, LLP, and Jones and Hill, LLC as Class
Counsel for purposes of settlement;
4. finally approving the Settlement and directing the
Parties, their counsel, and the Settlement Administrator
to fulfill their obligations and duties under the
Settlement Agreement;
5. dismissing with prejudice the above-styled action, the
Released Claims, and the Released Parties, and adjudging
that the Released Claims are released against the Released
Parties;
6. adjudging that Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members
are deemed to have fully, finally, completely, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Claims
against the Released Parties;
7. permanently enjoining and barring the Plaintiffs and the
Settlement Class Members from asserting, initiating,
prosecuting, or continuing any of the Released Claims
against the Released Parties;
8. approving an Incentive Awards of $1,500 to each class
representative;
9. approving payment of attorneys' fees and costs to Class
Counsel in the amount of $25,000.00; and
10. designating the University of Wisconsin Law School
Consumer Law Clinic as the cy pres recipient of any funds
remaining after distribution to the class members.[CC]
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Over COVID-19 Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Alberty, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that an
investor is suing the Salt Lake City company that makes the
coronavirus test used by TestUtah, saying the company falsely
claimed it was "100%" accurate.
Gelt Trading, Ltd., of the Cayman Islands, is seeking class-action
status for a securities-fraud lawsuit against Co-Diagnostics, a
Salt Lake City biotech firm. Co-Diagnostics' COVID-19 test is used
by Utah tech companies that have received more than $60 million in
no-bid contracts to run testing systems in Utah and two other
states.
The lawsuit alleges that Co-Diagnostics' stock prices rose due to
the company's claim that its coronavirus test showed 100%
sensitivity in multiple evaluations -- "a staggering claim that
appeared to set Co-Diagnostics apart from other competitors
developing COVID-19 tests," the lawsuit states.
Co-Diagnostics did not immediately respond to The Tribune's request
for comment.
The biotech company made the claims about its test accuracy in a
news release May 1, the day after The Tribune reported data showing
that TestUtah was producing positive results at less than half the
rate of Utah's other test sites, even when including only patients
with symptoms.
As various investor publications repeated the company's release
claiming 100% accuracy, the company's stock continued to rise,
reaching an all-time high of $29.72 on May 14 -- "an extraordinary
climb from its $0.8952 year-end 2019 price," the lawsuit states.
"As a result of this misrepresentation and the influx of taxpayer
dollars to Co-Diagnostics, the company's stock soared -- until it
crashed," the lawsuit states.
On May 14, The Tribune reported that TestUtah had declined to join
other Utah labs in an experiment to check the accuracy of one
another's coronavirus tests.
On the same day in Iowa, where the companies behind TestUtah are
running a similar testing system, state officials announced that a
public lab there had done its own experiment, finding "95% accuracy
for determining positives and 99.7% accuracy for determining
negatives."
The difference between 95 and 100% accuracy "can have momentous
adverse consequences if Co-Diagnostics' tests are used on a
widespread basis, as intended," the lawsuit states.
During the day, Co-Diagnostics stock price dropped more than 38%
within a few hours, according to the lawsuit. That afternoon, the
company's scheduled quarterly earnings call was flummoxed by an
apparent technical glitch, leaving investors to listen to a
cacophony of background noise, such as barking dogs, swearing and
intermittent calliope music. The stock price had fallen again to
$15.80 when the market opened the next day, the lawsuit states.
"Investors who believed Co-Diagnostics claims of 100% accuracy have
lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of Co-Diagnostics'
blatantly fraudulent statements to the investing public," the
lawsuit states.
Gelt and others bought shares "prior to May 14, when the truth
about the tests' accuracy began to be revealed, at a price much
higher than the price at which the stock traded after the truth of
the tests' accuracy was publicly revealed," according to the
lawsuit.
"Co-Diagnostics, its directors and officers -- including
Ph.D.-level scientists who should know better -- made continual,
knowing and willful misstatements about their main product, a
COVID-19 diagnostic test, to pump of the price of Co- Diagnostics'
stock while the officers and directors exercised low priced options
and dumped their stock into the market," the lawsuit states.
Gelt is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, to include any
investors who bought Co-Diagnostics stock between Feb. 25 and May
15 and lost money. [GN]
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Portnoy Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX)
investors that the firm has initiated an investigation into alleged
violations of securities laws, and may file a lawsuit on behalf of
investors to recover losses suffered by investors.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, including eligibility for appointment as a
class representative.
The investigation focuses on whether Co-Diagnostics, Inc. through
its officers misled investors regarding the reliability and
accuracy of the company's testing for COVID-19. Specifically, the
investigation focuses on whether the company's statements that its
tests were 100% accurate in fact misled investors and improperly
inflated the price of the stock.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm -- http://www.portnoylaw.com-- represents
investors from around the world and specializes in securities class
actions and shareholder rights litigation. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883 [GN]
COLUMBIA GAS: Gas Disaster Settlement Fees in Question
------------------------------------------------------
Jill Harmacinski of the Eagle Tribune reports that a total of $26.1
million of the $143 million Merrimack Valley gas explosion
class-action settlement was earmarked for payment of legal fees and
administrative costs.
And yet, some victims are being asked to pay an 11% fee to get
their checks, which are compensation for everything from spoiled
food and property damage, to lodging costs, mental anguish and
other fallout from the Sept. 13, 2018 gas disaster.
The first round of checks was recently issued with an average
settlement payment of $8,000. Eleven percent of that payment is
$880.
As of June 12, 2020, a spokesperson for Attorney General Maura
Healey said the office had heard from eight recipients about the
fee being assessed by attorney David Raimondo of the Raimondo Law
Firm. Healey's office is looking into this.
Raimondo stressed he is a private attorney and not a class-action
attorney.
"I have never had a complaint against me in 30 years," he said.
Raimondo said he requested a conference this week with Superior
Court Judge James Lang, who approved the $143 million settlement,
regarding his payment.
"I am seeking guidance from the court," Raimondo said.
Disaster victim Kelley Medvecky of South Lawrence said she's in the
middle of this dispute.
She agrees Raimondo should get paid. But, she says, the money
shouldn't be coming out of her settlement check.
"It should come from the monies awarded to lawyers and not our
rewards," Medvecky said.
State Sen. Diana DiZoglio, D-Methuen, said she has been contacted
by several residents whose settlement payments are being held up
due "unexpected fees from claim amounts."
"These fees appear listed as contingency fees but it is unclear to
residents whether there was, in fact, actually a contingency fee
agreement in place. In response, we reached out to the Attorney
General on their behalf to determine the legality of this
situation," DiZoglio said in a statement to The Eagle-Tribune.
Attorneys involved in the class-action lawsuit asked for the first
$70 million in payments to be mailed out in late May due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, which shut down parts of the economy. Payments
were previously expected to start in July.
The gas disaster, caused by overpressurized gaslines operated by
Columbia Gas, resulted in the death of Leonel Rondon, 18, of
Lawrence. Three firefighters and 19 civilians were hurt, and
damages in Andover, Lawrence and North Andover are estimated at $1
billion.
About 50,000 people were forced to evacuate. Five homes were
destroyed and 131 properties damaged, according to findings by the
National Transportation Safety Board.
Prior to the final court hearing on the settlement Feb. 27, a total
of 11,077 claims had been filed. That figure includes 10,432
residential ones and 645 from area businesses that suffered losses
or closed.
According to the decision, 56 percent of the claims came from
Lawrence, followed by 23 percent from Andover and 19 percent from
North Andover.
Columbia Gas officials have said they spent a billion dollars
already on gas disaster recovery in the communities.
The gas utility pleaded guilty to federal charges and also agreed
to pay a $53 million fine.
Competing utility Eversource Energy announced its $1.1 billion plan
to buy the Massachusetts portion of the company. [GN]
COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Sergii Bratusov.
On April 10, 2019, Sergii Bratusov, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company.
The case, captioned Bratusov v. comScore, Inc., et al., Case No. 19
Civ. 03210, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and also names the Company's Chief Financial
Officer, Gregory Fink, and the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer, Bryan Wiener, as defendants.
The complaint, which was amended on September 30, 2019, purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired
securities of the Company between February 28, 2019 and August 7,
2019 and alleges that the Company, Mr. Wiener, and Mr. Fink
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by allegedly failing to disclose in public
statements in February and March 2019 material information
concerning a disagreement relating to the Company's business
strategy.
The complaint also alleges that Mr. Wiener and Mr. Fink, acting as
control persons of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in connection with the Company's alleged failure to
disclose material information.
The complaint seeks a determination of the propriety of the class,
compensatory damages and the award of reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action.
The defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability and intend to
vigorously defend against these claims. Although the ultimate
outcome of this matter is unknown, the Company believes that a
material loss was not probable or estimable as of March 31, 2020.
comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.
COMSCORE INC: Settlement Reached in Privacy Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company and Full
Circle have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in the class
action litigation over alleged violation of the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act.
On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary,
Full Circle Studies, Inc., ("Full Circle"), received demand letters
on behalf of named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
alleging that the Company and Full Circle collected personal
information from users under the age of 13 without verifiable
parental consent in violation of Massachusetts law and the federal
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such
personal information by embedding advertising software development
kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by The Walt
Disney Company. The letters sought monetary damages, attorneys'
fees and damages under Massachusetts law.
On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adding
the Company and Full Circle as defendants in a purported class
action (captioned Rushing, et al v. The Walt Disney Company, et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04419-JD) against Disney, Twitter and other
defendants, alleging violations of California's constitutional
right to privacy and intrusion upon seclusion law, New York's
deceptive trade practices statute, and Massachusetts' deceptive
trade practices and right to privacy statutes.
The complaints alleged damages in excess of $5.0 million, with any
award to be apportioned among the defendants.
On February 26, 2020, the Company and Full Circle reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the complaints in full,
with no admission of liability, in return for injunctive relief and
payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, to be covered by the
Company's insurance.
The settlement is subject to court approval.
comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.
CONN'S INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 15 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss, you have until the
lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bed-bath-beyond-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7357&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020
Class Period: October 2, 2019 - February 11, 2020
Allegations against BBBY include that: (1) due to "aggressive
disposition of inventory," the Company lacked sufficient inventory
in key categories to support holiday sales; (2) the Company's
internal control over inventory levels and financial reporting was
not effective; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; 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.
SCWorx Corp. (WORX)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7357&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020
Class Period: April 13, 2020 - April 17, 2020
Allegations against WORX include that: (1) SCWorx's supplier for
COVID-19 tests had previously misrepresented its operations; (2)
SCWorx's buyer was a small company that was unlikely to adequately
support the purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) as a
result, the Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been
overstated or entirely fabricated; 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.
Conn's, Inc. (CONN)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/conns-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7357&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 14, 2020
Class Period: September 3, 2019 - December 9, 2019
Allegations against CONN include that: (1) Conn's was experiencing
an increase in first payment defaults and 60-plus day
delinquencies; (2) as a result, Conn's was reasonably likely to
record an increase to its provision for bad debts; (3) the Company
made certain underwriting adjustments, including tightening its
standards for new customers and online applicants; (4) as a result,
the Company's same-store sales would be adversely impacted; 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.
To learn more, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
CONSOL ENERGY: Certification of Plan Participants Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BENNY FITZWATER, CLARENCE
BRIGHT, and TERRY PRATER, EMMETT CASEY, JR., CONNIE Z. GILBERT,
ALLAN H. JACK SR., and ROBERT H. LONG, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. CONSOL ENERGY, INC., CONSOLIDATION
COAL CO., FOLA COAL CO., LLC, CONSOL OF KENTUCKY, INC., CONSOL
PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO., LLC and KURT SALVATORI, Case No.
2:16-cv-09849 (S.D. W.Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
"all individuals who were participants or surviving
beneficiaries covered by the CONSOL Energy Inc. Retiree
Health and Welfare Plan, whose benefits were terminated in
2015, and to whom CONSOL did not offer the same transition
benefit provided to those participants who joined the Plan
on or after September 30, 2014";
2. conditionally appointing Bren Pomponio and Sam Petsonk to
serve as class counsel, and Benny Fitzwater, Clarence
Bright, Emmett Casey, Jr., Bob Long, and Allan Jack to
serve as class representatives;
3. permiting the Parties 60 days to conduct limited discovery
on class issues and damages; and
4. directing conditional class counsel to propose to this
Court an appropriate notice to the class certified.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants directed a rule that
limited eligibility for the Retiree Transition Benefits to the
individual Retiree Welfare Plan participants who had the least
claims experience under that Plan -- and that denied those benefits
to the retirees who had the greater claims experience.
Consol Energy is an American energy company with interests in coal
headquartered in the suburb of Cecil Township, in the Southpointe
complex, just outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Defendants are doing business in the oil, gas & coal
industry.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
Bren Pomponio, Esq.
Aubrey Sparks, Esq.
MSJ LAW
223 Prince Street
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (681) 207-7510
Facsimile: (681) 207-7513
E-mail: sam@msjlaw.org
bren@msjlaw.org
aubrey@msjlaw.org
CUSTOMER CONNEXX: Cadema, et al. May Substitute Plaintiff in Curley
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIELLE CURLEY, Plaintiff, v. CUSTOMER
CONNEXX LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00233-APG-DJA,
(D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order granting Plaintiff
Danielle Curley's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to
Substitute Named Plaintiff.
The named Plaintiff has become unresponsive and thus, is not
capable of acting as a collective or class representative.
Consequently, two opt-in Plaintiffs Cariene Cadema and Andrew
Gonzales want to be substituted as the named plaintiffs.
Defendants' supplemental brief argues that the two opt-in
plaintiffs that are seeking the substitution are not adequate class
representatives if they made materially inconsistent statements and
their deposition testimony is provided to the Court.
Plaintiff responds that adequacy of representation is not required
in a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) nd
should be left for the later Rule 23 certification stage.
Given Plaintiff's fairly light burden at this stage of the
proceeding, the Court finds that the requested substitution of
Cadema and Gonzales for Curley should be granted. As for
Plaintiff's delay until August 30, 2019 in filing the instant
motion for leave to amend, it is disturbing as it appears as though
counsel knew that Curley was unresponsive prior to that date, the
Court notes.
However, amendment at this stage would be neither extraordinarily
disruptive nor prejudicial to Defendants, the Court determines.
Indeed, Defendants are clearly aware of the proposed named
plaintiffs to be substituted as they have conducted their
depositions. Defendants have not shown that the proposed named
Plaintiffs will not be able to state a plausible claim, just that
they expect they will not be able to ultimately serve as adequate
class representatives.
Finally, the Court does not find that Plaintiff acted in bad faith
in requesting the amendment. Indeed, the passage of time is not
reason enough to preclude amendment.
Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff Danielle Curley's Motion
for Leave to File Amended Complaint to Substitute Named Plaintiff.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 16, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tqa7q2a from Leagle.com
Danielle Curley, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Buck ,
Thierman Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones , Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R.
Thierman , Thierman Buck, LLP, 7287 Lakeside Dr., Reno, NV
89511-76520
Customer Connexx LLC & ARCA, Inc., Defendants, represented by Paul
T. Trimmer - Paul.Trimmer@jacksonlewis.com - Jackson Lewis P.C. &
Veronica T. Von Grabow - Veronica.vonGrabow@jacksonlewis.com -
Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice.
CV SCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Smith Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit
initiated by David Smith.
On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action
complaint in Nevada District Court (the "Smith Complaint") alleging
certain misstatements in the Company's public filings that led to
stock price fluctuations and financial harm.
Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith
suit and each of the other suits all arise out of a report
published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018,
suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose
that the Company's efforts to secure patent protection for CVSI-007
had been "finally rejected" by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office ("USPTO").
On November 15, 2018, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, as Lead
Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel
for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust,
filed a "consolidated amended complaint".
On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action.
The Court denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019, and
the parties have recently commenced discovery in the action.
Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.
CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
DIRECTV INC: Murphy Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Murphy filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-06465-AG-VBK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in the class
action lawsuit, Lead Plaintiffs John Murphy, Greg Masters and
Roberta Weiss had claimed that both Best Buy and DirecTV failed to
make it clear that Best Buy leases, rather than sells, DirecTV
equipment. They also alleged that those leases are unfair and come
with exorbitant fees.
The appellate case is captioned as John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-56364, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN MURPHY, on behalf of himself, and those
similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: 212-594-5300
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
Defendant-Appellee DIRECTV, INC., is represented by:
Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq.
Melissa Dawn Ingalls, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-680-8400
E-mail: rbladow@kirkland.com
melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com
Defendant-Appellee BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a Virginia Corporation,
is represented by:
Amy M. Churan, Esq.
Michael A. Geibelson, Esq.
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
800 LaSalle Avenue
2800 LaSalle Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
Telephone: 612-349-0824
E-mail: AChuran@RobinsKaplan.com
mageibelson@rkmc.com
- and -
Jennifer W. Leland, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-552-0130
E-mail: jwleland@rkmc.com
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported class action
complaint in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, remains
pending.
In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Center").
The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017. At that time,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of
action.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Center
over a multi-year period by failing to meet minimum staffing
requirements, failing to otherwise adequately staff the Center and
failing to provide a clean and safe living environment in the
Center.
The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the
amended complaint.
The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified
by the court as a class action.
The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
based in Brentwood, Tennessee.
DROPBOX INC: IPO Class Suits Consolidated in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Dropbox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that six putative class
suits in California related to the company's Initial Public
Offering (IPO) have been consolidated.
The Company is currently involved in four putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws that
were filed on August 30, 2019, September 5, 2019, September 13,
2019, and October 3, 2019, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Mateo County, against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, underwriters of its Initial Public Offering
(IPO), and Sequoia Capital XII, L.P. and certain of its affiliated
entities (collectively, the "Dropbox Defendants").
On October 4, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed against the
Dropbox Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "Federal Plaintiffs").
The six lawsuits each make the same or similar allegations of
violations of federal securities laws, for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting material
information from, the Company's IPO registration statement. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On March 2, 2020, the Federal Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.
The Company believes the cases are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend them.
The Company does not currently believe that this matter is likely
to have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results of
operations, cash flows, or financial position.
Dropbox, Inc. designs and develops document management software.
The Company offers a platform that enables users to store and share
files, photos, videos, songs, and spreadsheets. Dropbox serves
customers worldwide. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.
E & A PROTECTIVE: $150K Settlement Gets Final Approval in Martinez
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted final approval to the proposed class action
settlement in the case captioned RICHARD MARTINEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. E & A
PROTECTIVE SERVICES-BRAVO, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability
Company, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00658-BAM, (E.D. Cal.).
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement and Addendum are
fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Class, Plaintiff, and
Defendant, and is the product of good faith, arm's-length
negotiations between the parties; and further, that the Settlement
Agreement and Addendum are consistent with public policy, and fully
complies with all applicable provisions of law.
The Class consists of: All individuals who are or were employed as
security guards or officers, rovers, lieutenants, or sergeants, by
Defendant in California for one or more pay periods from May 14,
2014 through January 28, 2019 (the "Class Period").
Craig J. Ackermann of Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C., and Jonathan
Melmed of Melmed Law Group P.C. are appointed as counsel for the
Class.
The Settlement provides for a gross $150,000 for the Class.
A payment of up to $3,500 to Simpluris, Inc., the Settlement
Administrator is approved.
A Class Representative Incentive award of $5,000 for Plaintiff is
also approved.
An award of attorneys' fees, pursuant to Rule 23(h) in the amount
of $37,500 and costs in the amount of $9,100.27 to Plaintiff's
counsel is granted.
The Court also approved an allocation of $5,000 as payment for
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney Generals
Act (PAGA), and further approves of payment of 75% thereof
($3,750.00) to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for its
portion of the PAGA penalties.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 16, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/stugkor from Leagle.com
Richard Martinez, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, Plaintiff, represented
by Craig Justin Ackermann - cja@ackermanntilajef.com -, Ackermann &
Tilajef, PC, Jonathan Melmed - jm@melmedlaw.com - Melmed Law Group
P.C. & Avi M. Kreitenberg , Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C.,1180 S
Beverly Dr Ste 610, Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158
E&A Protective Services-Bravo, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Alecia W. Winfield -
awinfield@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, P.C. & James Phuc Van
- jpvan@littler.com - Littler Mendelson.
ENBRIDGE INC: Certification of Inspectors Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, ANGEL
HERNANDEZ, GORDON LUNSTED, and GREG HUGGINS individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC.,
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY SERVICES, INC. and CYPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT-TIR, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01080-WSS-LPL (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of and authorize notice
be sent to:
"all Inspectors paid a day rate who performed work on
behalf of Enbridge at any time in the past 3 years";
2. approving the Notice and Consent forms and authorizing a
reminder notice;
3. authorizing Class Counsel to contact Putative Class
Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice
forms return as undeliverable;
4. directing Enbridge to produce to Class Counsel the contact
information for each Putative Class Member within 10 days;
and
5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class
Members to join the case.
Enbridge operates as a oil and gas transporting company. Cleveland
Integrity offers support services to companies in the Energy,
Telecommunications and Power industries.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William R. Liles, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
William R. Liles, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
wliles@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: 412-766-1455
Facsimile: 412-766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in Beltz
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of their
appeal.
On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members
Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and
Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen;
C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W.
Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C.
Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of Exchange
who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The
individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the
then-current Directors of Indemnity.
As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the same
allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan
lawsuit.
Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders of
Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself.
Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the
Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013.
On February 10, 2014, the court entered an order granting
Indemnit's motion to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join the
Directors' motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors'
motion to dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide
any and all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other
relief sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the
case without prejudice.
To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's
review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would
proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable
determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will
be applied to the Beltz action.
On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On November 17,
2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on Indemnity's motion to
dismiss the appeal and instructed the parties to address that
motion, as well as the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, in the
parties' briefing.
Briefing was completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the
Department's April 29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then
jointly requested that the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as
moot on June 5, 2015.
The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for
dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8,
2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and
judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it
lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the District
Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to the
Department was not a final, appealable order.
On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled as
a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan, and
Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie
Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T.
Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman;
Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P.
Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert;
George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N.
Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield;
Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck;
Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The
individual defendants are all present or former Directors of
Indemnity (the "Directors").
The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges
that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges
was improper because, for among other reasons, that retention
constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and an Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity, breaches of
fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants, conversion by
Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants Jonathan Hirt Hagen,
Thomas B. Hagen, and Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, at the expense of
Exchange.
The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment
be entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and
Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the conduct
alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to, Defendants'
retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges;
enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the Service Charges
and Added Service Charges; and awarding compensatory and punitive
damages and interest.
On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their
own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17, 2017, the
Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its entirety.
The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does not govern
the separate and additional charges at issue in the Complaint" and,
therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim against Indemnity
for failure to state a claim. The Court also ruled that the
remaining claims, including the claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against Indemnity and the Directors, are barred by the applicable
statutes of limitation or fail to state legally cognizable claims.
On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On May 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Beltz II
lawsuit. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking
rehearing of their appeal before the Third Circuit. The Third
Circuit denied that petition on June 14, 2018.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for
the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United
States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy
issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and
is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.
EVENFLO COMPANY: Alexie Product Liability Suit Moved to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Talise Alexie, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00828 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on June 15, 2020.
The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11133-DJC to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Breach of Contract.
Evenflo Company, Inc., operates the juvenile travel and home safety
businesses with products that include car seats, travel systems,
safety gates, high chairs, play yards, stationary activity centers,
infant carriers and doorway jumpers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
Scott Jourdan Falgoust, Esq.
LEMMON LAW FIRM
15058 River Road
Hahnville, LA 70057
Phone: (985) 783-6789
Fax: (985) 783-1333
Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
scott@lemmonlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thear J. Lemoine, Esq.
Taylor Rene Lambert, Esq.
BROWN SIMS, PC
1100 Poydras St., 39th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 262-2956
Email: tlemoine@brownsims.com
tlambert@brownsims.com
- and -
Dan H. Ball, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 N. Broadway, Ste. 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 259-2000
Email: dhball@bryancave.com
- and -
Richard P. Cassetta, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
One Firstar Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101-1693
EXELON CORP: Litigation Over SEC Probe Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company and
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) continue to defend a putative
class action suit related to their receipt of subpoenas by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Exelson and ComEd received a grand jury subpoena in the second
quarter of 2019 from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern
District of Illinois requiring production of information concerning
their lobbying activities in the State of Illinois.
On October 4, 2019, Exelon and ComEd received a second grand jury
subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District
of Illinois requiring production of records of any communications
with certain individuals and entities.
On October 22, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
notified Exelon and ComEd that it has also opened an investigation
into their lobbying activities.
Exelon and ComEd have cooperated fully and intend to continue to
cooperate fully and expeditiously with the U.S. Attorney's Office
and the SEC. Exelon and ComEd cannot predict the outcome of the
U.S. Attorney's Office or the SEC investigations.
No loss contingency has been reflected in Exelon's and ComEd's
consolidated financial statements as this contingency is neither
probable nor reasonably estimable at this time. Management is
currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss as
these matters are subject to change.
Subsequent to Exelon announcing the receipt of the subpoenas, a
putative class action lawsuit has been filed against Exelon and
certain officers of Exelon and ComEd alleging misrepresentations or
omissions by Exelon purporting to relate to matters that are the
subject of the subpoenas and the SEC investigation.
In addition, a derivative shareholder lawsuit has been filed
against Exelon, its directors and certain officers alleging, among
other things, a breach of fiduciary duties also purporting to
relate to matters that are the subject of the subpoenas and the SEC
investigation.
Exelon believes that these claims lack merit and intends to defend
against them, and though the costs or any loss associated with the
lawsuits cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, Exelon does
not believe that the lawsuits, either individually or collectively,
will have a material adverse impact on Exelon's or ComEd's
consolidated financial statements.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
FAMILY HEALTH: Frost Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANITA FROST, JANICE BAKER,
and ESCHAR HARTONG, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. FAMILY HEALTH, A
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a Michigan for-profit business, Case No.
2:20-cv-11202-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
Act collective;
2. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed "Notice of Right to
Join Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms and
authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to circulate the
Proposed Notice via first-class mail and e-mail to the
proposed FLSA collective, defined as:
"all current and former hourly employees who worked for
Defendant Family Health at any time in the past three
years";
3. requiring the Defendant Family Health to identify all
potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing their names, last
known addresses, dates of employment, job titles, phone
numbers, and e-mail addresses in an electronic and
importable format within 10 days of the entry of the
order; and
4. allowing putative FLSA collective members 60 days from
circulation of the notice to file written consent forms.
[CC]
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
E-mail: ebailey@sommerspc.com
crash@sommerspc.com
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fischer & Saunders Seek to Certify FLSA Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTA B. FISCHER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-04924-JMG
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs Christa B. Fischer and Andre Saunders
ask the Court for an order granting conditional certification and
Court-Authorized Notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs file the motion for alleged wage and overtime
claims.
FedEx is an American multinational delivery services company
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. [CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George E. Swegman, Esq.
Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl
36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 244-7005
Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
kaburgy@nicholllaw.com
- and -
Scott M. Pollins, Esq.
POLLINS LAW
303 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 1C
Wayne, PA 19087
Telephone: 610 896-9909
Facsimile: 610 896-9910
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Massari Appeals Suit Ruling to Del. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Miguel Massari filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled MIGUEL MASSARI, Individually and on Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Individuals v. DANIEL MEYERS, SETH GELBER, NANCY
BEKAVAC, PETER DROTCH, THOMAS EDDY, WILLIAM D. HANSEN, JOHN CARTER
RISLEY, FP RESOURCES USA INC., and FP RESOURCES ACQUISITION CORP.,
Case No. 2019-0017-JTL, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to enjoin the Defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
proposed sale of First Marblehead Corp. to affiliates of John
Carter Risley, or rescinding it in the event the Defendants
consummate the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory
damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The merger between First Marblehead and Risley affiliates, FP
Resources USA Inc. and FP Resources Acquisition Corp. was executed
on June 2, 2016, through an all-cash merger worth $5.05 per share,
or a total of approximately $65.5 million.
However, said buyout was plagued by numerous conflicts of interest,
including First Marblehead management's interest in post-close
arrangements, the directors' and officers' interests in lump sum
buyout-related payments and lucrative arrangements for the
company's financial advisor, Sandler O'Neill, notes the complaint.
The Plaintiff alleges that the buyout price was inadequate and did
not represent the Company's actual intrinsic value, including its
positive future outlook.
First Marblehead was a specialty finance company that provided loan
programs for undergraduate and graduate students and various other
services for its lender clients. Defendants Meyers, Gelber,
Bekavac, Drotch, Eddy, Bekavac, Drotch, Eddy and Hansen sit in its
Board.
The appellate case is captioned as MIGUEL MASSARI, Individually and
on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals v. DANIEL MEYERS,
SETH GELBER, NANCY BEKAVAC, PETER DROTCH, THOMAS EDDY, WILLIAM D.
HANSEN, JOHN CARTER RISLEY, FP RESOURCES USA INC., and FP RESOURCES
ACQUISITION CORP., Case No. 504,2019, in the Supreme Court of the
State of Delaware.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Miguel Massari is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 10th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 652-3641
Facsimile: (302) 652-5379
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and -
W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
Garam Choe, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
E-mail: holleman@bespc.com
choe@bespc.com
Defendants-Appellees Daniel Meyers and Seth Gelber are represented
by:
Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
Thomas Uebler, Esq.
MCCOLLOM D'EMILIO SMITH UEBLER LLC
Little Falls Centre II
2751 Centerville Rd., Suite 401
Wilmington, DE 19808
Telephone: (302) 468-5960
Facsimile: (302) 691-6834
E-mail: jriley@mdsulaw.com
tuebler@mdsulaw.com
Defendants-Appellees FP Resources Acquisition Corp., FP Resources
USA Inc. and John Carter Risley are represented by:
David J. Teklits, Esq.
Alexandra Cumings, Esq.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
Telephone: (302) 658-9200
Facsimile: (302) 658-3989
E-mail: dteklits@mnat.com
acumings@mnat.com
Defendants-Appellees Nancy Bekavac, Peter Drotch, Thomas Eddy and
William D. Hansen are represented by:
Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq.
Eliezer Y. Feinstein, Esq.
Brian S. Yu, Esq.
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA
One Rodney Square
920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 651-7700
Facsimile: (302) 651-7701
E-mail: dicamillo@rlf.com
yu@rlf.com
FOGO DE CHAO: Certification of Rule 23 & FLSA Classes Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRUNO BALASSIANO, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated v. FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (ORLANDO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA
(JACKSONVILLE) LLC and FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (MIAMI) LLC, Case
No. 6:19-cv-02140-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:
1. granting class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for minimum wage claims for those
class members identified in the definition;
2. granting conditional class certification and Notice under
the FLSA for minimum wage claims and restitution of tips
unlawfully distributed to employees who do not customarily
and regularly receive tips;
3. directing the Parties to confer about the form and content
of the notice that will be sent to potential opt-in
plaintiffs (should the motion be granted);
4. directing the Defendants to produce the names, address,
phone numbers and personal email addresses of all
potential class and collective action members; and
5. appointing Plaintiff, The Leach Firm, P.A. and Celler
Legal, P.A. as the class and collective representatives of
the classes.
The Defendants operate Brazilian restaurants.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999 ext. 416
Facsimile: (833) 813-7512
E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
yhernandez@theleachfirm.com
- and -
Richard Celler, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Barbuto Notes of Aug. 10 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A., and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein, Esq.
(with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience,
including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON) advises investors
that a Securities Class Action lawsuit has been filed against
Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NasdaqGS: FSCT), and encourages
shareholders with losses exceeding $100,000 to contact the Firm to
discuss the case and their options as class members. The deadline
to petition the court to act as a lead plaintiff is August 10,
2020.
The case, The Arbitrage Fund, et al. v. Forescout Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No.: 3:20-cv-03819, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 6, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit alleges that Forescout and certain of its executives
failed to disclose material information during the Class Period
relating to its planned merger, violating federal securities laws.
On May 18, 2020, Forescout announced that it had received notice
from its acquisition partner, Advent International Corporation,
that Advent "would not be proceeding to consummate the acquisition
of Forescout" pursuant to the parties' merger agreement. As a
result of the disclosure, Forescout's stock price plummeted, wiping
out approximately $300 million in market capitalization. The
lawsuit alleges that Forescout failed to disclose during the Class
Period, among other things, that the Company was not meeting its
obligations under the merger agreement and that there was a
material risk that the merger would not close.
If you purchased shares of Forescout during the Class Period and
would like to discuss the case and your options as a class member
and potential lead plaintiff, 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. The Firm believes strongly that the choice of a
qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the
successful outcome of a case.
Contact:
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
http://www.barjolaw.com
[GN]
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 10 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 10, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Forescout
Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: FSCT), if they purchased the Company's
shares between February 6, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of Forescout 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/cases/nyse-fsct/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by August 10, 2020.
About the Lawsuit
Forescout and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On May 18, 2020, the Company disclosed that Advent International
Corporation "would not be proceeding to consummate the acquisition
of Forescout" per the February 6, 2020 merger agreement, despite
the Company's prior representations regarding the transaction and
its positive financial performance.
On this news, the price of Forescout's shares plummeted 23.5%,
wiping out approximately $300 million in market capitalization.
The case is The Arbitrage Fund, et al. v. Forescout Technologies,
Inc. et al., 3:20-cv-03819.
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]
FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Law Firms Awarded $6.95MM in Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the six law
firms responsible for securing a $750 million settlement on behalf
of pharmaceutical direct purchasers in a class action against
Allergan subsidiary Forest Pharmaceuticals have been awarded $69.5
million in fees, according to a ruling on June 15 by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The settlement, approved in May, resolved allegations that Forest
Laboratories accepted payments from Mylan Pharmaceuticals in
exchange for delaying its launch of a generic version of the
Alzheimer's drug, Namenda. The award represents 9.3% of the common
fund. [GN]
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal
from the district court decision granting the defendants' joint
motion to dismiss the Transient Lodging Tax-related suit remains
pending.
On August 31, 2018, prior guests of The STRAT Hotel, Casino &
SkyPod ("The Strat") filed a purported class action complaint
against the company in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on
behalf of similarly situated individuals and entities that paid the
Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax ("Tax") on the portion
of a resort fee that constitutes charges for Internet access,
during the period of February 6, 2014 through the date the alleged
conduct ceases.
The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national
moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their
political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and
the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax
collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs.
All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment,
Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of
merit. The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss on
February 21, 2019.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Nevada on
April 10, 2019. Golden, and other defendants, filed an appellate
response brief on October 19, 2019.
Golden Entertainment siad, "While legal proceedings are inherently
unpredictable and no assurance can be given as to the ultimate
outcome, based on management's current understanding of the
relevant facts and circumstances, we believe that the proceeding
should not have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
GOOGLE INC: Class Action Filed Over Google Play "Loot Box" Apps
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that plaintiffs
John Coffee, Mei-Ling Montanez, and her minor child, S.M., filed a
class action complaint against Google over gambling-related
purchases available in the Google Play store. The complaint accused
Google of allowing children to gamble through games available in
the Google Play store, allegedly in violation of California
legislation. The plaintiffs equated Google's tactics to "Big
Tobacco's 'Joe Camel' advertising campaign." They claimed that
"Google relies on creating addictive behaviors in kids to generate
huge profits for the Company."
The complaint said "[a] large percentage of Google's revenues from
Google Play store games come from the in-game purchases of what are
known in the gaming industry as 'loot boxes' or 'loot crates.'"
Loot boxes can be purchased with real money; they are "randomized
chances within the game to obtain important or better weapons,
costumes or players . . . or some other in-game item or feature
that is designed to enhance game-play." However, "buying a Loot Box
is a gamble, because the player does not know what the Loot Box
actually contains until it is opened." The plaintiffs note that
most Loot Box content tends to not be that desirable because it is
easy to obtain or a player already has that content; the desirable
content can be difficult to obtain or expensive. Further, the "Loot
Boxes have all the hallmarks of a Las Vegas-style slot machine,
including the psychological aspects to encourage and create
addiction -- especially among adolescents. Moreover, under
California law they constitute illegal 'slot machines or devices'
when played on a mobile phone, tablet, computer, or other similar
device."
For example, plaintiff S.M has been "induced to spend his parents'
money to purchase 'Loot Boxes' in-game" while playing a game on a
smartphone. Mei-Ling Montanez "estimates S.M. has spent more than
$100 on in-game purchases including Loot Boxes. The money spent on
Loot Boxes was done in exchange for the random-chance possibility
of winning valuable items in-game." S.M. was able to purchase these
items with his parents' credit card that was on file with the
Google Play App store. Moreover, no parental consent is required to
purchase these items. Montanez claimed that her son fell victim to
this "scheme," which is allegedly "designed to hook children into
spending money on the game." Furthermore, while these games are
"free," they may be free to download, but not fully free to play
because of these induced allegedly purchases.
According to the complaint, various games, including Mario Kart
Tour, FIFA Soccer, Roblox, Brawl Stars, Final Fantasy Brave Exvius,
and others use loot boxes. The Loot Boxes rely on a "variable rate
enforcement" reward structure, which "results in people quickly
acquiring behaviors and repeating these behaviors frequently in
hopes of receiving a reward." For example, "purchasing and opening
a Loot Box -- by design -- is visually, physically, and aurally
stimulating. Opening a Loot Box gives the player a rush; the moment
of anticipation followed by release. The Loot Box mechanism has
been proven to be effective on adults, and its effects are only
intensified when used on minors who are more prone to engage in
risk-taking behaviors, more prone to gambling addiction, and "are
less equipped to critically appraise the value proposition of these
schemes."
Google has financially benefitted from minors making in-game
purchases through the Loot Boxes. The plaintiffs claim this conduct
violates California legislation because it "constitutes gambling."
Moreover, some countries, such as Belgium, the Netherlands and
Japan have banned Loot Boxes because they violate their respective
gambling laws. Some U.S. states, such as Hawaii, Minnesota, and
Washington have also proposed banning loot boxes.
As a result of this alleged conduct, Google is accused of unlawful
and unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law. The gambling practices are prohibited in the
"California Business & Professions Code
Secs. 19800, et seq., California Penal Code Secs. 330, et seq., the
Illegal Gambling Business Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955), and the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (31 U.S.C. Secs.
5361-5367)." Additionally, Google allegedly engaged in unfair and
deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act. The plaintiffs also claim unjust enrichment against
Google.
The suit is filed in the Northern District of California. The
plaintiffs are represented by The Law Offices of Andrew J. Brown,
as well as Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP. [GN]
GROUPON INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on June 15 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.
GSX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/gsx-techedu-inc-loss-form?prid=7343&wire=1
GRPN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/groupon-inc-loss-form?prid=7343&wire=1
SRNE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-information-request-form?prid=7343&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
GSX Techedu Inc. (GSX)
GSX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased June 6, 2019 -
April 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 16, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/gsx-techedu-inc-loss-form?prid=7343&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, GSX
Techedu Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GSX overstated its
profitability, revenue, student enrollment figures, teacher
qualifications, and teacher selection process; (ii) the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Groupon, Inc. (GRPN)
GRPN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 4, 2019
- February 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/groupon-inc-loss-form?prid=7343&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Groupon,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing fewer
customer engagements in its Goods category; (2) Groupon relied on
its Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the
holiday season; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; 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.
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE)
SRNE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 15, 2020 -
May 22, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-information-request-form?prid=7343&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Sorrento
Therapeutics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro virus infection
will not necessarily translate to to success or safety in vivo, or
in person; (ii) the Company's finding was not a "cure" for
COVID-19; and (ii) 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 -- http://www.zlk.com-- 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 [GN]
GSX TECHEDU: Pomerantz Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against GSX Techedu Inc. (GSX) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and indexed under 20-cv-04457, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired GSX securities
between June 6, 2019, and April 13, 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 GSX securities during the
class period, you have until June 16, 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.
GSX is a technology-driven education company that provides online
K-12 after-school tutoring services in China. The Company also
provides a variety of other tutoring courses and services, such as
English courses for children in kindergarten, foreign language
courses, English test preparation courses for students taking
post-graduate entrance exams, professional courses for working
adults preparing for professional qualification exams, personal
interest courses, and offline business consulting courses.
Additionally, the Company operates Weishi, an interactive learning
platform on the popular Chinese digital application ("app")
WeChat.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GSX overstated its
profitability, revenue, student enrollment figures, teacher
qualifications, and teacher selection process; (ii) the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On February 25, 2020, Grizzly Research LLC ("Grizzly") published a
report highlighting multiple alleged issues with GSX's business and
financial operations (the "Grizzly Report"). Specifically, the
Grizzly Report alleged, among other issues, that the Company "has
been drastically overstating its profitability in its US public
filings, especially for 2018"; Grizzly "found multiple strong
indications of past and current order ‘brushing,'" which are
"essentially fake student enrollments to boost student count";
"many of GSX's reported students do not actually exist"; and
"[w]hile [GSX] touts its high-quality teacher recruitment
mechanism, [Grizzly] found a sign-up website that was not
functional, multiple allegations of GSX hiring teachers right out
of college with no prior experience, and fabricated teachers
profiles."
Following publication of the Grizzly Report, GSX's ADS price fell
$1.33 per share, or 2.93%, to close at $44.09 per share on February
25, 2020.
Then, on April 14, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published a
report highlighting additional alleged issues with GSX's business
and financial operations (the "Citron Report"), including, among
other issues, that the Company's "2019 revenue was overstated by
70%," that "sales revenues are largely exaggerated," and that the
Company's "filings are riddled with suspicious transactions."
Following publication of the Citron Report, GSX's ADS price fell
$0.20 per share, or 0.64%, to close at $31.20 per share on April
14, 2020-a total decline of 31.31% since the truth concerning GSX's
alleged fraud began to emerge.
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.
Contact:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
Tel: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/
[GN]
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Class Suit Underway in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
GTT Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.
On July 30, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Case No. 1:19-cv-00982) on behalf of certain GTT
stockholders.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in connection with disclosures relating
to GTT's acquisition and integration of Interoute Communications
Holdings S.A. The complaint seeks unspecified damages.
The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. At this time,
no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether the
outcome will be material to the Company.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
GTT Communications, Inc. provides cloud networking services to
multinational enterprises, carriers, and government customers in
the United States, Europe, and internationally. The Company was
formerly known as Global Telecom & Technology, Inc. and changed its
name to GTT Communications, Inc. in January 2014. GTT
Communications, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
McLean, Virginia.
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors in Hallmark Financial Services, Inc.
(NASDAQ: HALL) who have suffered significant losses to submit their
losses now. The July 7, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in a
securities fraud class action against Hallmark is fast
approaching.
Class Period: Mar. 5, 2019 - Mar. 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/HALL
Contact An Attorney Now: HALL@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Hallmark Financial Services (HALL) Securities Class Action:
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed: (1) that the Company lacked effective
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related
to reserves for unpaid losses; and (2) that the Company improperly
accounted for reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses related to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business.
Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint,
through a series of disclosures beginning on Mar. 2, 2020, when
Hallmark announced it was exiting the Binding Primary Commercial
Auto business and reported a $63.8 million loss development for
prior underwriting years.
Then, on Mar. 11, 2020, Hallmark announced it had dismissed its
independent auditor BDO over a "disagreement" concerning the
Company's estimated reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses throughout 2019.
Finally, on Mar. 17, 2020, Hallmark disclosed a letter from BDO to
the SEC revealing that BDO had expanded significantly the scope of
its audit on Jan. 31, 2020, with respect to the matters of
disagreement, and that "a substantial portion the requests had not
been received and/or tested prior to our termination."
These disclosures caused Hallmark shares to decline over 75% lower
between Mar. 2 and Mar. 18, 2020.
"We're focused on proving Defendants intentionally misled investors
about the Company's internal controls and the sufficiency of its
loss reserves," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Hallmark should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
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 Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email HALL@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman -- http://wwww.hbsslaw.com-- is a national law firm
with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty
attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers
and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its
successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Probing Investors' Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL). The
investigation concerns whether Hallmark and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
On March 2, 2020, Hallmark Financial announced its decision to exit
from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business and reported a
$63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years. On
this news, Hallmark's stock price fell $2.10 per share, or more
than 14%, to close at $12.23 per share on March 3, 2020.
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, Hallmark's stock price fell
$2.39 per share, or over 29%, to close at $5.71 per share on March
12, 2020.
Then, on March 17, 2020, Hallmark filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission 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, Hallmark's stock price fell an additional $0.08 per share, or
2.5%, to close at $3.12 per share on March 18, 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.
Contact:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
Tel: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/
[GN]
ILLINOIS: Nowlin Sues Governor Over Ban on Gatherings
-----------------------------------------------------
DAWN NOWLIN, KARLA BOLDT, RACHEL M. OLIVARES, APRIL SCHWEITZER,
MELISSA L. SHARMA, JESSE KADERA, PETER PTAK, JAMES SHIPLEY, ELAINE
CONFORTI, CHERYL A. THOMPSON, CAROLINE SZWAJLIK, and QUINTON S.
MISTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
businesses and Illinois citizens, Plaintiffs v. JAY ROBERT
PRITZKER, Governor of Illinois, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01229-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill., June 15, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for various law violations including the
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the
Article I of the Illinois Constitution, the Illinois Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, and for illegal and unjust taking of
private property.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's Executive Orders and
five-phase plan and non-mandatory guidelines in their continued
extension since March 9, 2020, and with no foreseeable end, violate
the Plaintiffs' and Class members' ability to carry out their
religious practices and restrict their rights to freedom of
religion, assembly, speech and travel by targeting and burdening
their religious expression, prohibiting their ability to leave
their homes and speak with other individuals outside their homes,
forcing and mandating the wearing of masks outside of the home, and
allowing groups of people with separate or differing political and
social agendas and view-points to gather in large groups, protest
without restrictions and government protection, and in several
cases damage property including places of worship, and loot. The
Plaintiffs argue that since the Defendant has granted numerous
exemptions for purportedly essential businesses, gatherings, and
activities, there can be no doubt that Defendants may, and
therefore must permit Plaintiffs and Class members to engage in
equivalent constitutionally protected activities on the same or
similar terms. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Kreamer, Esq.
Joseph E. Urani, Esq.
KREAMER LAW GROUP, LLC
1100 E. Warrenville Rd., Suite 135
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 995-3668
Facsimile: (630) 597-9532
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: Cruz Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Industrial
Revolution, Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Industrial Revolution,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04582 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Industrial Revolution, Inc., manufactures camping gear. The Company
offers utensils, mess kits, fire starting, candle lanterns, head
lamps, flash lights portable grills, knifes, portable stoves and
solid fuels, and tripods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
INSULET CORP: Bid for Fees & Expenses in ATRS Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that plaintiffs' motion for
payment of fees and expenses in the matter, Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, remains under
advisement.
Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court, for the
District of Massachusetts, against the Company and certain then
current and former executives of the Company.
Two suits subsequently were voluntarily dismissed.
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al.,
1:15-cv-12345, ("ATRS") alleged that the Company (and certain then
current and former executives) committed violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects.
On February 8, 2018, the parties executed a binding stipulation of
settlement, under which all claims were released, and a payment was
made into an escrow account for the plaintiffs and the class they
purport to represent.
On August 6, 2018, the Court issued an order approving the
settlement, but took the plaintiffs' motion for fees and expenses
under advisement, which motion remains pending.
Insulet said, "The Company had previously accrued fees and expenses
in connection with this matter for the amount of the final
settlement liability that was not covered by insurance, the amount
of which was not material to the Company's consolidated financial
statements."
Insulet Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells insulin
delivery systems for people with insulin-dependent diabetes.
Insulet Corporation was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Acton, Massachusetts.
INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: September 2 Final Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Heffler Claims Group
regarding the IHG InterContinental Hotels Group Settlement.
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving
malware intrusions that affected certain Inter-Continental Hotels
Corporation and InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc.
("IHG")-branded hotel, restaurant and bar locations between August
1, 2016 through December 29, 2016 (the "Data Security Incidents").
The affected hotel brands include InterContinential, Holiday Inn,
Holiday Inn Express & Suites, Candlewood Suites, Crowne Plaza,
Staybridge Suites, and Hotel Indigo. The specific locations and
time frames during which the IHG-branded hotel, restaurant, and bar
locations were affected by the Data Security Incidents are
available at www.IHGdatasecuritysettlement.com.
Who is Included?
You are included in the Settlement if you reside in the United
States and used a credit or debit card at the front desk of an
affected hotel location or to make or attempt to make a purchase at
an affected restaurant or bar location identified at the website
www.IHGdatasecuritysettlement.com during the period in which that
hotel, restaurant or bar was affected by the Data Security
Incidents.
What can I get from the Settlement?
The Settlement provides for payments to people who submit valid
claims for documented out-of-pocket expenses of up to $250 that
either of the Data Security Incidents was a contributing factor to
the expense being incurred, and for reimbursement of documented
fraudulent and unauthorized losses of up to $3,500 that were more
likely than not caused by the Data Security Incidents. The total
payments to the class are capped at $1,550,000.
How do I get a Payment?
The only way to qualify for a payment is to submit a valid Claim
Form online or postmarked no later than September 12, 2020. You can
file a claim online at www.IHGdatasecuritysettlement.com or call
1-833-913-4210 to request that a Claim Form be mailed to you.
What are my Rights?
Do Nothing: If you do nothing, you will remain in the Settlement
Class, but you will not be eligible for benefits, and you will be
bound by the decisions of the Court and give up your rights to sue
IHG for the claims resolved by this Settlement.
Object to the Settlement: You can stay in the Settlement Class and
object to the Settlement for any reason. Objections must be filed
with the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia by August 12, 2020.
Exclude Yourself: If you do not want to be legally bound by the
Settlement and wish to retain the right to sue IHG, you must
request to be excluded by August 12, 2020. Detailed instructions
on how to object or exclude yourself can be found at
www.IHGdatasecuritysettlement.com.
On September 2, 2020, the Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing
to determine whether to approve the Settlement, Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and reasonable costs and expenses of
$550,000, and an Incentive Award of $1,500 for each of the
Representative Plaintiffs. The final approval motion and motion
for attorneys' fees and reasonable costs and expenses will be
posted on the Settlement website after they are filed. You or your
lawyer may attend the hearing at your own cost, but you do not have
to.
This is only a summary. For additional information including the
Claim Form, the Settlement Agreement, how to file an objection, and
Frequently Asked Questions call 1-833-913-4210 or visit
www.IHGdatasecuritysettlement.com. [GN]
J JACOBO FARM: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gomez Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marisol Gomez and Ignacio Osorio filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Marisol Gomez, et al. v. J.
Jacobo Farm Labor Contract, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01489-AWI-BAM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Fresno.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in the
lawsuit, a farm labor contractor is being sued by two of its
employees for violating California's wage-and-hour laws and the
federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act of
1983 ("MAWPA"). The two employees are Plaintiffs Gomez and Osorio.
The farm labor contractor is Defendant J. Jacobo Farm Labor
Contractor, which is not to be confused with Javier Jacobo, who is
the president of J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor Inc.
The original complaint against the Defendant was filed in September
2015 by Gomez, but not Osorio. The complaint was amended in August
2018 to add Osorio as a Named Plaintiff. The first amended
complaint, which is the operative complaint, pleads nine causes of
action against the Defendant, including MAWPA violations.
The appellate case is captioned as Marisol Gomez, et al. v. J.
Jacobo Farm Labor Contract, et al., Case No. 19-80153, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners MARISOL GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and IGNACIO OSORIO are represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Natalia Ramirez Lee, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: 510-832-9999
E-mail: stanleym@themmlawfirm.com
hectorm@themmlawfirm.com
nramirezlee@themmlawfirm.com
- and -
Mario G. Martinez, Esq.
MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH
P.O. Box 1998
Bakersfield, CA 93303
Telephone: 661-859-1174
E-mail: mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com
Defendant-Respondent J. JACOBO FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC., is
represented by:
Roger Dale Wilson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROGER D. WILSON
2377 W. Shaw Ave.
Fresno, CA 93711
Telephone: 559-233-4100
E-mail: roger@wilson-law.com
JOHNS HOPKINS: Faces Class Action Seeking Partial Tuition Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Aragon, writing for Fox45 News, reports that a graduate
student of Johns Hopkins University has filed a class action
lawsuit seeking a partial refund on tuition.
This comes after the university, like many across the country,
moved to online instruction due to COVID-19.
John Soumilas, an attorney for student Elena Botts, said the issue
comes down to the question of value and if online education is the
same as a full on-campus experience.
He said he believes reimbursement for food and housing costs
doesn't go far enough.
Elena Botts is a graduate student of International Studies at Johns
Hopkins.
Her attorney said she signed up for an on-campus classes but
because of COVID-19 that is no longer possible.
Soumilas said he believes Botts should not be paying full tuition
for the online education she is receiving this spring.
"Online education is just not the same as a full on campus
education," said Botts lawyer, John Soumilas. "When students pay in
excess of $60,000 to go to an excellent school like Hopkins I think
they deserve to get what they paid for and if they don't get what
they paid for, they just shouldn't pay as much."
He said Johns Hopkins regularly offers online courses at a
substantial discount to the actual on campus experience.
We reached out to Johns Hopkins University for a comment about the
lawsuit recently filed but have not yet heard back. [GN]
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Cache and Rapid Appeal Ruling in Reichert Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Cache Valley Bank and Rapid Investments, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jeffrey Reichert
v. Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-05848-RBL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit challenges the use of prepaid "release cards" for
reimbursing confiscated cash to inmates as they are released from
incarceration. Many government facilities have opted to use these
cards instead of redistributing funds via cash or a check.
However, unlike those other methods, release cards carry hefty fees
that start depleting inmates' funds within hours of release. The
contracts with government agencies to provide release cards are
managed by Defendant Rapid Investments, Inc., and issued by Cache
Valley Bank.
The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Reichert, et al. v.
Rapid Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-35989, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JEFFREY REICHERT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
chris@sylaw.com
ehamburger@sylaw.com
- and -
Masimba Mutamba, Esq.
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Telephone: (561) 360-2523
E-mail: mmutamba@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
Defendants-Appellants RAPID INVESTMENTS, INC., DBA Access Freedom,
DBA Rapid Financial Solutions; and CACHE VALLEY BANK are
represented by:
Emily J. Harris, Esq.
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98154-1051
Telephone: (206) 625-8600
E-mail: eharris@corrcronin.com
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Reichert Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jeffrey Reichert, et al. v.
Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit challenges the use of prepaid "release cards" for
reimbursing confiscated cash to inmates as they are released from
incarceration. Many government facilities have opted to use these
cards instead of redistributing funds via cash or a check.
However, unlike those other methods, release cards carry hefty fees
that start depleting inmates' funds within hours of release. The
contracts with government agencies to provide release cards are
managed by Defendant Rapid Investments, Inc., and issued by Cache
Valley Bank.
The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Reichert, et al. v.
Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-35994, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JEFFREY REICHERT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and GARY MOYER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
rspoonemore@sylaw.com
chris@sylaw.com
- and -
Masimba Mutamba, Esq.
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Telephone: (561) 360-2523
E-mail: mmutamba@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
Defendant-Appellant KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC, DBA Access
Corrections, is represented by:
Sylvia Karen Bamberger, Esq.
BETTS, PATTERSON & MINES, P.S.
701 Pike Street, Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206-268-8634
E-mail: kbamberger@bpmlaw.com
- and -
Russ Ponessa, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
333 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612-333-3434
E-mail: rponessa@hinshawlaw.com
KELLOGG: Class Suit Over Cereals May be Be Settled if Deal Reworked
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that proposed class action lawsuits against Kellogg, Post,
and General Mills, with a common lead plaintiff in the Northern
District of California federal courts, allege that "healthy" and
other nutrition-related claims on various breakfast cereals are
false and misleading because the cereals contain high amounts of
sugar.
As we previously reported, the judge certified three classes of
consumers in the case against Kellogg, and the case may be settled
if an agreed upon deal is reworked to make it acceptable to the
court.
A class was also certified in the lawsuit against Post, and the
case is proceeding to trial after the judge found there is a
material issue of fact as to whether the products are unhealthy
given the amount of added sugar.
The case against General Mills was dismissed, however, with the
judge finding that plaintiffs could not possibly have been misled
because the amount of sugar in the cereals is clearly disclosed on
the product labels.
On June 12, 2020, in a hearing by a three-judge panel of an appeal
of the dismissal of the lawsuit against General Mills, a recently
confirmed judge, Danielle J. Hunsaker, asked a line of questions
regarding what amount of added sugar in a product makes the product
unhealthy. The judge reportedly was not swayed by the plaintiffs'
argument that a "healthy" claim is not appropriate on any product
with added sugar.
While many consumers continue to be concerned about sugar in the
diet, there are complex issues surrounding the impact on health of
added sugars in a single product and a product's role in the total
diet. Meanwhile, as it works on redefining the "healthy" nutrient
content claim for food labeling, FDA has not indicated how it will
act on a citizens petition (discussed here) requesting a regulation
to establish disqualifying levels of added sugar that would
prohibit the use of a "healthy" claim. [GN]
LENDINGCLUB: Averts Securities Class Action Over FTC Probe
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that fintech firm LendingClub has prevailed again on
a bid to end a proposed securities class action it faces in a
California federal court accusing the company of mismanaging
messaging around a Federal Trade Commission investigation, a judge
ruled as she dismissed some of the suit's claims permanently. [GN]
LHC GROUP: Rosenblatt Class Action Terminated
---------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit has granted Lead Plaintiff's motion for voluntary
dismissal of the appeal in the consolidated Rosenblatt class action
and dismissed the appeal. The case is now terminated.
On April 1, 2018, the Company completed the Merger with Almost
Family. At the effective time of the Merger on April 1, 2018, each
outstanding share of common stock of Almost Family, other than
certain canceled shares, was converted into the right to receive
0.9150 shares of the Company's common stock and cash in lieu of any
fractional shares of any Company common stock that Almost Family
shareholders would otherwise have been entitled to receive.
On January 18, 2018, Jordan Rosenblatt, a purported shareholder of
Almost Family filed a complaint for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, styled Rosenblatt v. Almost Family,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-40-TBR (the "Rosenblatt Action").
The Rosenblatt Action was filed against the Company, Almost Family,
Almost Family's board of directors, and Merger Sub.
The complaint in the Rosenblatt Action asserted, among other
things, that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed on December
21, 2017 in connection with the Merger contained false and
misleading statements with respect to the Merger.
In addition to the Rosenblatt Action, two additional complaints
were filed against Almost Family in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions")
alleging similar violations as the Rosenblatt Action.
On February 22, 2018, plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions moved for
a preliminary injunction to enjoin the merger of Almost Family and
Merger Sub. On March 22, 2018, the court denied plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction.
The next day, on March 23, 2018, one of the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Actions moved to consolidate the Delaware Actions with the
Rosenblatt Action and for the appointment of a lead plaintiff. On
December 19, 2018, the Court granted the motion to consolidate,
appointed Leonard Stein, a purported Almost Family shareholder, as
the Lead Plaintiff, and approved Stein's selection of Lead
Counsel.
On February 1, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The
Consolidated Complaint asserted claims against Almost Family, the
Company and Almost Family's board of directors for violations of
Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act in connection with the dissemination
of the Company's and Almost Family's Proxy Statement concerning the
Merger, and asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims and claims for
violations of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against Almost Family's
former board of directors.
On February 11, 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and the Company's motion to strike and dismissed Lead
Plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice and state law claims
without prejudice.
On March 12, 2020, Lead Plaintiff appealed the court's decision to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On April
17, 2020, Lead Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss his appeal,
and on April 23, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit granted Lead Plaintiff's motion and dismissed the
appeal, and thus the case is now terminated.
LHC Group, Inc., a health care provider, specializes in the
post-acute continuum of care primarily for Medicare beneficiaries
in the United States. The company was founded in 1994 and is based
in Lafayette, Louisiana.
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Digitas Appeals Summary Judgment in Johansen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Third Party Defendant Digitas, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled KEN JOHANSEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP,
INC., and SPANISH QUOTES, INC. d/b/a WESPEAKINSURANCE, Defendants,
LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., Cross-Claimant v. SPANISH QUOTES, INC.
d/b/a WESPEAKINSURANCE, Cross-Defendant, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP,
INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiffs v.
PRECISE LEADS, INC., and DIGITAS, INC., Third-Party Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-12920-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in
part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
The case began as a putative class action complaint against Liberty
Mutual Group Inc. and Spanish Quotes Inc., which does business as
WeSpeakInsurance. Plaintiff Ken Johansen alleged that Liberty
Mutual and Spanish Quotes called him, or caused him to be called,
multiple times in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), despite his number being listed on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry and his request that Liberty Mutual not call
him again.
The appellate case is captioned as Liberty Mutual Insurance, et al.
v. Digitas, Inc., Case No. 19-2113, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff KEN JOHANSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD A. BRODERICK
208 Ridge St.
Winchester, MA 01890
Telephone: 617-738-7080
- and -
Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
1 South Ave.
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: 508-655-1415
- and -
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Mary Reiten, Esq.
Beth Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 N 34th St., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: 206-816-6603
E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: 508-221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
and Defendant-Appellee LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP are represented by:
Anthony A. Froio, Esq.
Michael Reif, Esq.
Manleen Singh, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 Boylston St., Suite 2500
Boston, MA 02199-7610
Telephone: 617-267-2300
E-mail: AFroio@RobinsKaplan.com
MReif@RobinsKaplan.com
Defendant SPANISH QUOTES, INC., d/b/a WESPEAKINSURANCE, is
represented by:
Peter Edward Ball, Esq.
Ryan Michael Cunningham, Esq.
FITCH LAW PARTNERS LLP
1 Beacon St., 16th Floor
Boston, MA 02108-0000
Telephone: 617-542-5542
E-mail: rmc@fitchlp.com
peb@fitchlp.com
- and -
Eric Chen, Esq.
Christine M. Reilly, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
Telephone: 310-312-4237
E-mail: echen@manatt.com
creilly@manatt.com
- and -
Anthony A. Froio, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 Boylston St., Suite 2500
Boston, MA 02199-7610
Telephone: 617-267-2300
E-mail: AFroio@RobinsKaplan.com
Third Party Defendant-Appellant DIGITAS, INC., is represented by:
Michael R. Dockterman, Esq.
Lauren Jaffe, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
227 W Monroe St., Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-577-1243
E-mail: mdockterman@steptoe.com
ljaffe@steptoe.com
- and -
John E. Frey, Esq.
WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN, & DIXON LLP
225 West Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606-0000
- and -
Laura Greenberg-Chao, Esq.
HENSHON KLEIN LLP
120 Water St., 2nd Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: 617-367-1800
E-mail: lgreenbergchao@henshon.com
- and -
Julianne Landsvik, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Telephone: 617-937-2407
E-mail: jlandsvik@cooley.com
Third Party Defendant PRECISE LEADS, INC., is represented by:
Michael Scott Batson, Esq.
Matthew E. Bown, Esq.
HERMES NETBURN O'CONNOR & SPEARING PC
265 Franklin St., 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02110-3113
Telephone: 617.210.7745
E-mail: mbatson@hermesnetburn.com
mbown@hermesnetburn.com
LINDEN BULK: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in Castro Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Linden Bulk Transportation LLC filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Werny Castro v. Linden Bulk
Transportation LLC, et al., Case No. ESX-L-006141-19, in the New
Jersey Superior Court.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Plaintiff and the putative class members were
misclassified as independent contractors by the Defendants, and the
Plaintiff and the class consequently seek to recover significant
economic damages sustained as a result of the Defendants' unlawful
withholdings or deductions from, and/or unlawful diversions of,
their wages and compensation in violation of the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.
Based on their misclassification, the Plaintiff and the putative
class have also been required to pay large fees in order to obtain
truck driving work from the Defendants, which effectively amounts
to the Defendants charging them for a job. They have also had
numerous improper deductions taken from their pay and they have
been required to pay the expenses necessary to perform their jobs,
the lawsuit says.
The appellate case is captioned as Werny Castro v. Linden Bulk
Transportation LLC, et al., Case No. 20-8028, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent WERNY CASTRO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, is represented by:
Anthony S. Almeida, Esq.
Ravi Sattiraju, Esq
SATTIRAJU & THARNEY
50 Millstone Road
Building 300, Suite 202
East Windsor, NJ 08520
Telephone: (609) 469-2110
E-mail: aalmeida@sattirajulawfirm.com
rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com
Defendant-Petitioner LINDEN BULK TRANSPORTATION LLC, AKA Odyssey
LBT LLC, is represented by:
Peter F. Berk, Esq.
GENOVA BURNS
494 Broad Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 533-0777
Facsimile: (973) 533-1112
E-mail: pberk@genovaburns.com
LUCKIN COFFEE: Pension Funds to Lead Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Swedish pension
fund Sjunde AP-Fonden, or AP7, and the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension
& Relief Fund will lead a securities class action against Luckin
Coffee Inc., a Chinese coffeehouse chain embroiled in an accounting
scandal, a federal court in Manhattan said.
Their attorneys at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP were also appointed class
counsel.
Muddy Waters Research in January published a report stating that
Luckin had fabricated key financial performance metrics. Luckin in
April announced that investors shouldn't rely on the company's
previous financial statements, and later admitted that its chief
operating officer and other employees had fabricated millions of
dollars worth of sales. Nasdaq said it would delist the company.
AP7 and the sheriffs' fund, which together have a stated interest
in the case of $6.9 million, beat out several other candidates to
lead a securities class action against Luckin. The two have
extensive experience prosecuting class action securities suits, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said.
There's no evidence suggesting a conflict of interest with other
class members, and they've retained counsel that's highly
experienced with securities class actions, Judge Lewis J. Liman
added.
Luckin is represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.
The case is Cohen v. Luckin Coffee Inc., S.D.N.Y., No.
1:20-cv-01293, 6/15/20. [GN]
MARICOPA, AZ: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Isabel Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Isabel filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled David Isabel v. Michele Reagan, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-03217-DWL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the case under the Civil Rights Act.
Michele Reagan (born October 13, 1969) is an American Republican
politician, who is the 20th and current Arizona Secretary of State,
succeeding Ken Bennett in 2015.
Maricopa County is a county in the south-central part of the U.S.
state of Arizona. As of the 2010 census, its population was
3,817,117, making it the state's most populous county, and the
fourth-most populous in the United States.
Adrian Fontes is the county recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona.
The appellate case is captioned as David Isabel v. Michele Reagan,
et al., Case No. 19-17397, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID ISABEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Spencer Garrett Scharff, Esq.
Scharff PLC
502 W Roosevelt St.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: (602) 739-4417
Email: spencer@scharffplc.com
Defendant-Appellee MICHELE REAGAN, in her individual capacity, is
represented by:
Timothy La Sota, Esq.
TIMOTHY A. LA SOTA, PLC
2198 E. Camelback Road, Suite 305
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: 602-515-2649
Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF MARICOPA and ADRIAN FONTES, in his
official capacity as Maricopa County Recorder, are represented by:
Colleen Connor, Esq.
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
222 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2206
Telephone: 602-506-8541
MCGRAW-HILL: Miller Alleges Price-Fixing of Course Materials
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KIYANA MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MCGRAW-HILL LLC; PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.;
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; BARNES &
NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP,
INC.; and EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS ENFORCEMENT GROUP, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-07281 (D.N.J., June 15, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' violations of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman
Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated college students in the United States, alleges
that the Defendants are engaged in anticompetitive scheme wherein
students can no longer purchase course materials from any source
other than the Defendants through their joint promotion and
implementation of Inclusive Access system. Rather than competing
and taking market share from one another, the Defendants worked
toward a common goal of monopolizing the market, which has allowed
them to charge students higher prices for course materials with no
procompetitive justifications for their collusive conduct. The
Defendants' conspiracy has suppressed competition, reduced
student-consumer choice, and raised prices for course materials,
resulting in antitrust injury to the Plaintiff and the proposed
Class in the form of overcharge damages.
Cengage Learning, Inc. is an educational publisher headquartered in
Boston, Massachusetts.
McGraw-Hill LLC is an educational publishing company headquartered
in New York, New York.
Pearson Education, Inc. is an educational publisher headquartered
in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company that operates college bookstores in the United
States, with principal place of business in Basking Ridge, New
Jersey.
Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. is the parent company of bookstore
operator Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC, headquartered in
Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. is an operator of campus
bookstores in the United States, with principal place of business
in Westchester, Illinois.
Educational Publishers Enforcement Group (EPEG) is a consortium of
the educational publishers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19131
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
dzinser@srkattorneys.com
- and –
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
Craig S. Davis, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
jnservais@locklaw.com
csdavis@locklaw.com
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Agreement Reached to Resolve New York Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the Company has
reached an agreement with plaintiffs to resolve lawsuits in New
York in exchange for payment of $50,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.
On January 25, 2019, two purported class action complaints were
filed against Medley Capital Corporation, Brook Taube, Seth Taube,
Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E.
Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Medley Management Inc.
("MDLY"), Sierra Income Corporation ("Sierra"), and Sierra
Management, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York.
The complaints were captioned Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al.,
Index No. 650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook
Taube, et al., Index No. 650510/2019 (together with the Lax Action,
the "New York Actions").
The complaints in each of the New York Actions alleged that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger of the Company with and into
Sierra, and that the other defendants aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts were sought.
On December 20, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement of another
purported stockholder class action that was commenced in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware by FrontFour Capital Group LLC
and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd., captioned as FrontFour Capital
Group LLC, et al. v. Brook Taube et al., Case No. 2019-0100 (the
"Delaware Action") against defendants Brook Taube, Seth Taube,
Jeffrey Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack,
Arthur S. Ainsberg, MDLY, Sierra, the Company, MCC Advisors, Medley
Group LLC, and Medley LLC.
The plaintiffs in the New York Actions have acknowledged that the
settlement of the Delaware Action rendered the New York Actions
moot; however, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the New York
Actions have asserted that they have the right to seek an order
awarding them fees and recovery of expenses on account of their
purported contributions to the settlement of the Delaware Action.
Following a period of negotiations, the Company has reached an
agreement with the respective plaintiffs to resolve the New York
Actions.
While the Company continues to believe that the allegations in the
New York Actions are without merit, to avoid the nuisance,
potential expense, burden and delay due to continued litigation,
the Company has agreed to pay $50,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the mooted
claims asserted. This amount will be covered by the Company's
insurance carrier.
Medley Capital said, "Settlement of the New York Actions is
expressly not to be construed as an admission of wrongdoing, fault
or liability by any defendant. The defendants have vigorously
denied, and continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or
liability with respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which
could have been asserted, in the New York Actions, including that
they have committed any violations of law or breach of fiduciary
duty, aided and abetted any violations of law or breaches of
fiduciary duty, acted improperly in any way or have any liability
or owe any damages of any kind to the plaintiff or to the purported
class."
Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York, New York.
METLIFE INC: Atikins Parties Agree to Drop Case
-----------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in Atkins
et. al. v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (D.Nev., filed November 18,
2019), have filed a stipulation of voluntarily dismissal of the
action without prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of all
persons due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not
receive the entire amount to which they were entitled. Plaintiffs
assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and conversion based on allegations that the defendants
failed to timely pay annuity benefits to certain group annuitants.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief.
On April 17, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntarily
dismissal of the action without prejudice.
MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.
METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Suit Against MLIC Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (MLIC) continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(S.D.N.Y., filed February 9, 2017).
Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.
The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs
and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to
exempt from overtime pay in November 2013.
As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.
On March 22, 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for MLIC from February 8, 2014 to the
present.
MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.
METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend itself in the putative class action entitled, Parchmann
v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y., filed February 5, 2018).
Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a
class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from
February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018.
Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board, and its Chief Financial Officer violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing materially false and/or misleading financial
statements.
Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for
estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were
inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over
financial reporting.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.
METLIFE INC: Settlement in Newman Suit Wins Approval
----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that an Illinois district
court has approved a nationwide class settlement in the class
action suit entitled, Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(MLIC) (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016).
Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on
behalf of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a
Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature on their long-term care
insurance policies and whose premium rates were increased after age
65.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive relief.
On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the
action.
Plaintiff appealed this ruling and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.
On February 20, 2020, the district court approved a nationwide
class settlement of the case.
The Company accrued the full amount of the expected settlement
payment in prior periods.
MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.
METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Lawsuit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Westland Police and
Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012).
Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons
who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February
9, 2011, and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife,
Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the
Company's March 4, 2011 offering.
Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Haworth FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Elliott K. Haworth filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Elliott Haworth, et al. v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00046-BCB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska, Omaha.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act in
connection with their debt collection communications and
practices.
The appellate case is captioned as Elliott Haworth, et al. v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-3474, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Elliott K. Haworth and Dallas R. Brown, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is
represented by:
Owen Randolph Bragg, Esq.
HORWITZ & HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
25 E. Washington Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60602-0000
Telephone: (312) 372-8822
E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com
- and -
Pamela A. Car, Esq.
CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
Omaha, NE 68124-0000
Telephone: (402) 391-8484
Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
E-mail: pacar@cox.net
- and -
William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM L. REINBRECHT
2120 S. 72nd Street
Omaha, NE 68124
Telephone: (402) 391-8484
E-mail: billr205@gmail.com
Defendants-Appellees Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Midland
Funding, L.L.C., are represented by:
Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
13520 California Street, Suite 290
Omaha, NE 68154
Telephone: 402-965-8600
E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com
- and -
Shilee T. Mullin, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
12925 West Dodge Road, Suite 107
Omaha, NE 68154
Telephone: 402-965-8600
E-mail: smullin@spencerfane.com
Defendant-Appellee Messerli & Kramer P.A. is represented by:
Katie D. Figgins, Esq.
MESSERLI KRAMER
1299 Farnam Street, Suite 374
Omaha, NE 68102
Telephone: 402-401-2724
E-mail: kfiggins@messerlikramer.com
- and -
Derrick Neal Weber, Esq.
MESSERLI KRAMER
3033 Campus Drive, Suite 250
Plymouth, MN 55441
Telephone: 763-548-7900
E-mail: dweber@messerlikramer.com
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Seeks Dismissal of Ex-Campaign Aides' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cadelago, writing for Politico, reports that Mike
Bloomberg is asking a court to throw out a lawsuit brought by
former aides to his failed presidential campaign who allege they
were promised to be paid through the general election before he
laid them off.
Bloomberg attorneys wrote in their June 15 motion to dismiss that
the former field organizers who brought the class-action lawsuit
earlier this year signed offer letters and were provided employee
handbooks that specifically stated they were "at will" workers and
could be terminated "at any time."
In the motion, Bloomberg's lawyers wrote that the aides do not meet
any of the requirements to bring such claims and contend that they
also failed to meet the heightened standard for fraud. Bloomberg's
team argued that if the case isn't dismissed outright, the court
should nix the class-action allegations because the claims are
"highly individualized and not suitable for class treatment."
Three former Bloomberg field organizers in Georgia, Utah and
Washington state filed the lawsuit in March, contending that they
were fraudulently induced to accept jobs with the former New York
mayor's presidential campaign via promises of guaranteed pay
through November.
The former Bloomberg field organizers acknowledged signing at-will
contracts with the campaign, but they argued in their lawsuit that
they can bring the claims based on evidence that they were
persuaded to join the campaign because of the longevity promises
made to them.
POLITICO reported earlier this year that Bloomberg hiring materials
described as coming from headquarters promised work with "Team
Bloomberg" through the general election regardless of whether he
became the Democratic presidential nominee, provided that the aides
were willing to relocate.
"It is unfortunate that the Bloomberg campaign is seeking to close
the courthouse door on thousands of hard-working staffers by moving
to dismiss the case and by asking the court to deny class
certification prematurely," Ilann Maazel, an attorney for the
aides, told POLITICO in a statement. "Our clients look forward to
having their day in court, and they are still holding out hope that
the Bloomberg campaign will keep its promises to more than 2,000
staffers who were wrongly terminated in the middle of a pandemic."
The legal fight has reverberated into the general election.
Bloomberg, who initially shared plans about starting a super PAC
that could have employed the former aides, decided instead to
transfer $18 million of his own money to the Democratic National
Committee to help the eventual Democratic nominee, presumably Joe
Biden. The campaign at the time invited former field organizers to
apply for jobs with the party through its "competitive process,"
with no guarantee of a job.
Last month, POLITICO reported that DNC officials have been
pressuring battleground state parties to hire the former employees,
with some chafing at hiring requests, which they saw as a cleaning
up after Bloomberg's PR disaster. [GN]
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that the National
Collegiate Athletic Association and its top conferences were hit
with a proposed antitrust class action in California federal court
on June 15 claiming they're profiteering off of students' names,
images, and likenesses.
"The hard work of college athletes has translated into
billion-dollar television deals, multi-million dollar coaching
salaries, extravagant facilities, and lucrative commercial
licensing and sponsorship agreements," the lawsuit says.
"Although student-athletes produce the product that fuels this
industry," it adds, "these same young men and women receive only a
tiny fraction of the revenues they generate, while continuing to
face severe penalties for failing to abide by a labyrinth of
rules."
In addition to the NCAA, the complaint targets its "Power Five"
conferences: the Pac-12, Big Ten, Big Twelve, Southeastern
Conference, and Atlantic Coast Conference. It was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by Arizona
State University swimmer Grant House and University of Oregon
basketball player Sedona Prince.
The suit accuses the NCAA and conferences of colluding "to create
an anti-competitive market" in which college athletes are
"powerless to realize the commercial value of their own NILs," even
as leagues, teams, coaches, and their corporate sponsors get
millions each year from likeness deals and "social media blitzes."
It alleges "an overarching conspiracy to fix the amount that
student-athletes may be paid" for their NILs "at zero."
While the NCAA strictly enforces athlete violations of its
"draconian" rules, "it has failed since its inception to
effectively and consistently police its rules against exploitative
outside influences," according to the complaint.
"Notably absent from NCAA bylaws is any proscription or limitation
on the amount of money that large corporate interests can pour into
college sports and university athletic programs, and companies take
advantage of the opportunity to derive immense profits," the suit
says.
Moreover, students playing sports that don't offer lucrative
professional opportunities have a limited time to cash in on their
fame through social media sponsorships, and the league and
conferences are effectively usurping that chance, according to the
complaint.
It cites recent rulings by a federal judge and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit striking down caps on
education-related compensation for college athletes, as well as a
California law that would let them get paid for endorsements.
The suit also refers to an earlier class action that ruled against
some of the NIL restrictions. The league's subsequent reform
pledges have been "vague, indefinite, and noncommittal," according
to the complaint.
"The NCAA has yet to make any actual rule changes," the suit says.
Cause of Action: Section 1 of the Sherman Act; unjust enrichment.
Relief: Treble damages, an injunction, invalidation of NCAA bylaws
restricting NIL compensation, costs, and fees.
Potential Class Size: An injunction-seeking class of Division I
athletes who have competed in the past four years; a sub-class
seeking social-media related damages on behalf of athletes playing
for any of the Power Five conferences.
Response: A Pac-12 spokesman said it was reviewing the complaint
but couldn't comment on pending litigation. The NCAA said that it
is reviewing the lawsuit but didn't have a comment. The Big Twelve,
SEC, and ACC didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on
June 15. The Big Ten couldn't be reached.
Attorneys: The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.
The case is House v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, N.D. Cal.,
NO. 20-cv-3919, complaint filed 6/15/20. [GN]
NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Cyrius Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Recovery
Systems, Ltd. The case is styled as Renee Cyrius, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Recovery
Systems, Ltd., Case No. 0:20-cv-61181-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 15,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Nationwide Recovery Systems (NRS) provides debt recovery,
collections and EBO services for the healthcare and commercial
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yosef Steinmetz, Esq.
COHEN AND MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: yosef@cml.legal
NCAA: Student-Athletes Must Be Paid for Image Use, House Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GRANT HOUSE and SEDONA PRINCE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; PAC-12 CONFERENCE; THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE,
INC.; THE BIG TWELVE CONFERENCE, INC.; SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE; and
ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D.
Cal., June 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent current and former
student-athletes who compete on, or competed on, an National
Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) Division I athletic team
at any time between four years prior to the filing of this
Complaint and the date of judgment in this matter. The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into a
continuing horizontal and vertical contract, combination, and
conspiracy to fix the amount that student-athletes may be paid for
the licensing, use, and sale of their names, images, and likenesses
(NILs) -- at zero; and (b) foreclose student-athletes from the
market for licensing, use, and sale of their NILs entirely. NCAA
NIL restraints in the market and total abridgment of compensation
rights for current and former student-athletes are not connected to
any legitimate non-commercial goal. The Defendants' actions are
solely to enhance revenue for themselves and their for-profit
business partners by being able to take all the revenue related to
the commercial use of student-athletes' NILs for themselves. As a
direct and proximate result of Defendants' scheme, the Plaintiffs
and the Class members have been injured and financially damaged as
they received lower prices for use of their NILs than they would
have received in a competitive marketplace.
National Collegiate Athletic Association is a not-for-profit
educational organization that maintains its principal place of
business located at 700 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana.
Pac-12 Conference is an unincorporated association, with its
principal place of business located in this District at 360 3rd
Street, third floor, San Francisco, California.
The Big Ten Conference, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation and a
multi-sport collegiate athletic conference, organized under the
laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at
5440 Park Place, Rosemont, Illinois.
The Big 12 Conference, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation and a
multi-sport collegiate athletic conference organized under the laws
of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 400
East John Carpenter Freeway, Irving, Texas.
Southeastern Conference is an unincorporated association and a
multi-sport collegiate athletic conference, with its principal
place of business located at 2201 Richard Arrington Boulevard
North, Birmingham, Alabama.
Atlantic Coast Conference is an unincorporated association and a
multi-sport collegiate athletic conference, with its principal
place of business located at 4512 Weybridge Lane, Greensboro, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: bens@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Emilee N. Sisco, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
emilees@hbsslaw.com
NEW AGE: Eighth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Bailey FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mario Bailey filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Mario Bailey v. New Age Distributing Inc., Case No.
4:18-cv-00538-JM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Little Rock.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a delivery
driver, helper, and driver and helper from approximately November
2016 until March 2018.
The Defendant is a for-profit, domestic corporation, created and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Arkansas,
providing business-to-business beverage distribution services.
The appellate case is captioned as Mario Bailey v. New Age
Distributing Inc., Case No. 19-3514, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Mario Bailey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Sean Short, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
One Financial Center, Suite 411
650 S. Shackleford Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
Defendant-Appellee New Age Distributing Inc. is represented by:
Dylan Botteicher, Esq.
Brian A. Vandiver, Esq.
COX & STERLING
8712 Counts Massie Road
North Little Rock, AR 72113
Telephone: 501-954-8073
NEW YORK: Board Files 11 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's ruling in
the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.
The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3839;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3843;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3845;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3843;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3848;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3850;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3854;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3855;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3856;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3857; and
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-3858.BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Eleuterio Alvarez, Celandia Espinal, Dolly
Garcia, Thelma Gould, Ian Smith, Mayra Vitale, Sakina
Waldrip-Brutus, Peter Nunez and Sharon Frias are represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:
Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: 212-356-2400
E-mail: gpestana@law.nyc.gov
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
The class action suit entitled, In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785, is still pending, Nexstar
Media Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that
they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby
harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising
time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1,
2014.
The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations.
On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation").
On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed
plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel.
The MDL Litigation is ongoing.
The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019;
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019.
Before the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019.
This complaint added additional defendants and allegations. The
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8, 2019.
That motion is currently pending.
Nexstar and Tribune deny the allegations against them and will
defend their advertising practices.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.
OMNIPOINT MANAGEMENT: Graves Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omnipoint Management
Solutions LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kenny Graves,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Omnipoint Management Solutions LLC, DNF Associates LLC, John Does
1-25, Case No. 7:20-cv-04579 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Omnipoint Management Solutions provides debt resolution services
specializing in pre- and post-charge off debt recovery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Harris Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gaylan Harris filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit styled Gaylan Harris v. County of Orange, Case No.
8:09-cv-00098-AG-MLG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises out of the restructuring of two benefits the County provided
to its retirees: the Retiree Premium Subsidy and the Grant Benefit.
The County began offering group medical insurance to its retired
employees in 1966. Initially, premiums were calculated separately
for active and retired employees. The County paid a large portion
of the premiums for active employees, but retirees paid most of
their own premiums. From 1993 through 2007, retired employees also
received a monthly grant to defray the cost of health care
premiums. The terms of the Grant Benefit were set forth in
Memoranda of Understanding ("MOUs") between the County and its
union-represented employees.
Beginning in 2004, the County negotiated with its labor unions to
restructure the retiree medical program, which was underfunded. Two
years later, the Board of Supervisors approved an agreement with
the labor union that made the following relevant reductions in
benefits for retirees: (1) the County would split retired and
active employees into separate pools to set premiums; (2) the
maximum increase for the Grant Multiplier would be reduced from 5%
to 3%; and (3) once a retiree became eligible for Medicare (at age
65), the Grant Benefit would be reduced by 50%.
On Nov. 5, 2007, the Retired Employees Association of Orange
County, Inc. ("REAOC"), a non-profit representing County retirees
and their spouses, filed suit challenging the County's decision to
eliminate the Retiree Premium Subsidy. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of the County in the REAOC case, holding
that the County was not obligated to provide the Retiree Premium
Subsidy for the duration of Retirees' lives because there was no
evidence of any explicit legislative or statutory authority
requiring the County to do so, and because that obligation could
not arise by implication from past practices or the parties' course
of dealing.
The appellate case is captioned as Gaylan Harris v. County of
Orange, Case No. 19-56387, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GAYLAN HARRIS, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Patrick Brown, Esq.
GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
1001 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: 206-467-6477
E-mail: mbrown@gordontilden.com
Defendant-Appellee COUNTY OF ORANGE is represented by:
Arthur Anthony Hartinger, Esq.
Jennifer Nock, Esq.
RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP
350 Sansome Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415-848-7200
E-mail: ahartinger@publiclawgroup.com
jnock@publiclawgroup.com
- and -
Teri Maksoudian, Esq.
Laurie Ann Shade, Esq.
ORANGE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
333 W. Santa Ana Boulevard
P.O. Box 1370
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Telephone: (714) 834-5635
Facsimile: (714) 834-2359
E-mail: teri.maksoudian@coco.ocgov.com
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Enters Proposed Settlement in Riche Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 a term sheet for a proposed settlement of the
class action suit entitled, Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case No.
2018-0177, without admission of liability or wrongdoing, has been
signed between the parties.
Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S.
Geothermal Inc. ("USG"), a number of putative shareholder class
action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG
shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG
and the individual members of the USG board of directors.
All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in
Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed.
The single remaining class action complaint is a purported class
action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, entitled Riche v.
Pappas, et al., Case No. 2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018).
An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a
confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff. The
amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing
damages.
On March 27, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet
for a proposed settlement of the action, without admission of
liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties. The sum
the Company will bear in this context is not material. The parties
are working on final settlement documentation for submission to the
court, whose approval is required.
Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia,
Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally.
The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product,
and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is
based in Reno, Nevada.
PAYSIGN INC: Faces 3 Putative Class Action Suits in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------
Paysigin, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the company has been named in three putative
class action suits initiated by persons who acquired the Company's
common stock from March 12, 2020 through March 30, 2020,
inclusive.
The Company has been named as a defendant in three recent
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada: Yilan Shi v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., filed on
March 19, 2020, Lorna Chase v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., filed on
March 25, 2020 and Smith & Duvall v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., filed
on April 2, 2020 (collectively, the "Complaints").
All three complaints are putatively class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's common
stock from March 12, 2020 through March 30, 2020, inclusive.
The Complaints allege that the Company, Mark R. Newcomer, and Mark
Attinger violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Messrs.
Newcomer and Attinger violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to
disclose material facts, regarding the company's internal control
over financial reporting and our financial statements.
The Complaints seek certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorneyss fees and costs.
Paysign has not been served any of the complaints as of the date of
this filing and cannot give any meaningful probability of outcome
or damages.
Paysigin, Inc. a vertically integrated provider of prepaid card
programs and processing services for corporate, consumer and
government applications. The company's payment solutions are
utilized by its corporate customers as a means to increase customer
loyalty, increase patient adherence rates, reduce administration
costs and streamline operations. The company is based in Henderson,
Nevada.
PEACOCK ALLEY: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peacock Alley, Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Peacock Alley, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04580 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Peacock Alley, Inc., manufactures and markets bedding and bath
products. The Company offers sheeting, duvet covers, shams,
coverlets, blankets, bedskirts, accessories, as well as bath
products including pillows, towels, rugs, linen, robes, and
curtains.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PENNSYLVANIA: Gill Suit Seeks to Certify Class of LTCFs Residents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JODI GILL, as Representative
and Next Friend of GLENN OSCAR GILL, a Long Term Care Facility
Resident, on his behalf and on behalf of all others Similarly
Situated and GREG HUBERT, as Representative and Next Friend of
NETHIA KNIGHT, a Long Term Care Facility Resident, on her behalf
and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated v. PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Case No. 2:20-cv-02038-HB (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
a. certifying a plaintiff class consisting of:
"all persons who are residents of long term care
facilities (LTCFs) in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
b. certifying the Plaintiffs as the representatives of the
Class; and
c. designating Shrager & Sachs; Kanter, Bernstein & Kardon,
P.C.; Massa, Butler, Giglione; and Robert Peirce &
Associates, P.C. as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Pennsylvania Department of Health
(PA DOH) has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act as a result of their alleged failure to take
appropriate actions to safeguard the lives and health of the
residents of LTCFs in Pennsylvania.
PA DOH provides programs, services and health related information
for adults, business owners, caregivers, and health care
providers.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert L. Sachs, Jr. Esq.
Theresa M. Blanco, Esq.
SHRAGER & SACHS
2300 One Commerce Square
2005 Market Street
Philadelphia PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 568-7771
E-mail: rsachs@shragerlaw.com
tblanco@shragerlaw.com
- and -
Peter D. Giglione, Esq.
MASSA, BUTLER, GIGLIONE
Three Gateway Center, Suite 1543
401 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 338-1800
E-mail: pgiglione@mbp-law.com
- and -
Martin S. Kardon, Esq.
KANTER, BERNSTEIN & KARDON PC
1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1150
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215 568-5885
E-mail: kardon@kbklaw.com
- and -
Robert F. Daley, Esq.
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
E-mail: bdaley@peircelaw.com
PHOENIX TREE: Block & Leviton Reminds of June 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a national securities
litigation firm, announces that securities class action have been
filed against Phoenix Tree Holdings Ltd. (: DNK), Hallmark
Financial Services, Inc. (HALL), and Hamilton Beach Brands Holding
Company (: HBB). Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed below to move the court.
Further details about the cases are described below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
DNK Shareholders - Click Here: https://shareholder.law/phoenixtree
HALL Shareholders - Click Here: https://shareholder.law/hallmark
HBB Shareholders - Click Here: https://shareholder.law/hbb
Phoenix Tree Holdings Ltd. (: DNK) - Lead Plaintiff Deadline of
June 26, 2020
Phoenix Tree, a holding company that leases and manages apartments
in China, held its initial public offering for its American
Depositary Shares ("ADS") on January 22, 2020, in which it sold 9.6
million ADS at $13.50 each. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that the IPO
materials misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the nature and
level of renter complaints that Phoenix Tree had received before
and as of the IPO, plus the Company's exposure to significant
adverse developments resulting from the onset of COVID-19 in China.
The ADS fell to less than half of their IPO price.
Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (HALL) - Lead Plaintiff Deadline
of July 6, 2020
During the month of March 2020, Hallmark's shares plummeted after a
series of announcements. First, on March 2, 2020, Hallmark revealed
its decision to "exit its Binding Primary Auto business." In one
day, Hallmark's share price fell $2.10, to close at $12.23 per
share. Next, on March 11, 2020, Hallmark announced that it had
fired its public accounting firm over "a disagreement." On this
news, the stock fell from $8.10 to $5.71 per share. Then on March
17, 2020, Hallmark filed a letter with the SEC indicating that the
former public accounting firm had "expanded significantly the scope
of its audit on January 31, 2020." On this news, the stock fell to
just $3.12 per share.
Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (: HBB) - Lead Plaintiff
Deadline of July 21, 2020
On May 11, 2020, Hamilton Beach Brands disclosed that it could not
timely file its first quarter 2020 quarterly financial report due
to "certain accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of
recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the
classification of certain expenditures within the statement of
operations at its Mexican subsidiary." In addition, the Company
stated that its "Audit Review Committee has commenced an internal
investigation, with the assistance of outside counsel and other
third party experts," concerning "the realizability of certain
assets of the Mexican subsidiary." On this news, shares of Hamilton
Beach Brands common stock fell by approximately 9%, or $1.03 per
share, to close at just $10.43 per share on unusually heavy trading
volume.
If you purchased or acquired shares of DNK, HALL, or HBB and have
questions about your legal rights or possess information relevant
to these matters, please contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617)
398-5600, via email at cases@blockesq.com, or via the links
provided above.
Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a firm
dedicated to representing investors and maintaining the integrity
of the country's financial markets. The firm represents many of the
nation's largest institutional investors as well as individual
investors in securities litigation throughout the United States.
The firm's lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for its
clients.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising.
CONTACT:
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: cases@blockesq.com [GN]
PHOENIX TREE: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited (NYSE:DNK)
("Phoenix Tree" or the "Company") of the June 26, 2020 deadline to
seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class
action that has been filed against the Company.
If you invested in Phoenix Tree American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 17, 2020 initial
public offering ("IPO") and would like to discuss your legal
rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/DNK. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail
torgonnello@faruqilaw.com.
CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased
Phoenix Tree ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
January 17, 2020 IPO. The case, Wandel v. Gao et al., No.
20-cv-03259 was filed on April 24, 2020, and has been assigned to
Judge Louis L. Stanton.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the
Offering Materials issued in connection with the 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.
Since Phoenix Tree's IPO, the Company's share price has declined
from its IPO price of $13.50 by approximately 50%.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Phoenix Tree's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
PHOENIX TREE: Klein Law Notes of June 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited
(NYSE: DNK) alleging that the Company violated federal securities
laws.
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
Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/phoenix-tree-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?id=7327&from=5
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.
Shareholders have until June 26, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the DNK lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Contact:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Web site: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/
[GN]
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: CEO Takes Leave After Price-Fixing Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Penn, the chief executive officer of Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
(NASDAQ: PPC) charged by U.S. prosecutors of conspiring to fix
prices, has begun a paid leave of absence effective immediately
according to a statement by the company. A federal indictment,
revealed in early June 2020, disclosed evidence of Mr. Penn
directly discussing the alleged price-fixing with colleagues.
The United States Department of Justice has taken action to protect
consumers from price fixing, and rising food prices, issuing a
press release on June 3, 2020 on the matter. Assistant Attorney
General Makan Delrahim of the Department of Justice's Antitrust
Division states, "[p]articularly in times of global crisis, the
division remains committed to prosecuting crimes intended to raise
the prices Americans pay for food. Executives who cheat American
consumers, restauranteurs, and grocers, and compromise the
integrity of our food supply, will be held responsible for their
actions."
Several law firms have issued notices to investors, so what can
investors do to promote social justice during this time? "Investors
are particularly well suited to bring justice to consumers by
filing a class action lawsuit to promote fair dealing and better
accountability. And, securities class actions serve many purposed
in that these procedural measures promote effective corporate
governance, regulatory compliance while also allowing the investors
to recover damages they may have suffered in their Pilgrim's Pride
investment," says Lesley F. Portnoy, founding partner of the
Portnoy Law Firm. Mr. Portnoy encourages Pilgrim's Pride investors
to contact his law firm to discuss the legal claims to pursue
justice for consumers and investors.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com
[GN]
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Line 901 Incident Trial Set for Sept. 1
------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California has tentatively set a trial date of
September 1, 2020, for two sub-classes:
(i) commercial fishermen who landed fish in certain specified
fishing blocks in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or
persons or businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such
areas; and
(ii) residential beachfront properties on a beach and
residential properties with a private easement to a beach where oil
from the spill washed up.
In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.
A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Office of
Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of
Emergency Management, was established for the response effort.
Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted
shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified
Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been
dissolved.
The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934
barrels; of this amount, the company estimate that 598 barrels
reached the Pacific Ocean.
Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact the company to discuss their damage claims. The
company received a number of claims through the claims line and it
ha had been processing those claims and making payments as
appropriate.
In addition, the company also had nine class action lawsuits filed
against it, six of which have been administratively consolidated
into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.
In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different
classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the
release. The court originally certified three sub-classes of
claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the
certification of one of the three sub-classes, the oil-industry
sub-class, and the District Court subsequently dismissed the
oil-industry sub-class representatives' claims.
The two remaining sub-classes include (i) commercial fishermen who
landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters
adjacent to Santa Barbara County or persons or businesses who
resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; and (ii)
residential beachfront properties on a beach and residential
properties with a private easement to a beach where oil from the
spill washed up.
The court has tentatively set a trial date of September 1, 2020 for
those two sub-classes.
Plains All American said, "We are also defending a separate class
action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line
901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well
as compensatory damages."
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.
POPULAR INC: Appellate Proceedings in Maura Case Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Appellants' brief in the class action styled, Yiries Josef Saad
Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., was due on June 8, 2020 and the
Appellee's brief is due 30 days thereafter, according to Popular,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") has been named a defendant in
another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v.
Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the
Gonzalez Camacho action, on behalf of residential customers of the
defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers.
As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel, all in violation of TILA, the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other consumer-protection
laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount
of damages in their complaint.
After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the Gonzalez
Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately). BPPR
further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the
Court granted in September 2018.
In April 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting
BPPR's and several other defendants' motions to dismiss with
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration in April
2019, which Popular timely opposed.
In September 2019, the Court issued an Amended Opinion and Order
dismissing plaintiffs' claims against all defendants, denying the
reconsideration requests and other pending motions, and issuing
final judgment.
In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court's Amended Opinion and Order, which was denied in December
2019.
On January 13, 2020, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Appellants' brief is
due on June 8, 2020 and Appellee's brief is due 30 days
thereafter.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
POPULAR INC: BPPR Seeks to Dismiss Soto-Melendez Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico has filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action styled, Soto-Melendez vs. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, and the plaintiffs have opposed the motion, according
to Popular, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
On February 7, 2020, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") was
served with a putative class action complaint captioned
Soto-Melendez vs. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, filed before the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
The complaint alleges breach of contract due to BPPR's purported
practice of (a) assessing more than one insufficient funds fee
("NSF Fees") on the same "item" or transaction and (b) charging
both NSF Fees and overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on the same item or
transaction, and is filed on behalf of all persons who during the
applicable statute of limitations period were charged NSF Fees
and/or OD Fees pursuant to this purported practices.
On April 10, 2020, BPPR filed a Motion to Dismiss in the case,
which was opposed by plaintiffs on April 24, 2020.
Popular said, "BPPR expects to reply to the opposition on or before
May 12, 2020."
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
POPULAR INC: Final Approval Hearing of Torres Pact Set for June 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed
class settlement in the class action suit styled, Ramirez Torres,
et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, and a hearing is set
for June 28, 2020 to consider final approval of the proposed class
settlement, according to Popular, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has separately been named a
defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez
Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before
the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part.
The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the same
Popular Defendants, as well as other financial institutions with
insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico.
Plaintiffs contend that in November 2015 Antilles Insurance Company
obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to
market an endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain
reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good experience,
but that defendants failed to offer this product or disclose its
existence to their customers, favoring other products instead, in
violation of their duties as insurance brokers.
Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new
insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter
subject to a determination that defendants engaged in monopolistic
practices in failing to offer this product).
In July 2017, after co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive
relief, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment, and in March
2018 the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance's
dismissal. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court denied review.
In August 2019, the Popular Defendants and plaintiffs filed a Joint
Motion where they informed the Court that plaintiffs were
simultaneously filing voluntary dismissals with prejudice against
all other parties.
In September 2019, a status hearing was held where plaintiffs and
the Popular Defendants informed the Court that the parties were in
the process of stipulating a class for settlement purposes.
The Court held a hearing on April 24, 2020 where it preliminarily
approved the terms of the proposed class settlement. Notices to
the proposed class for settlement purposes were published on April
28 and May 5, 2020.
The Court set a hearing for June 28, 2020 to consider the final
approval of the proposed class settlement.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
POPULAR INC: Golden Balks at Overdraft Fees Protocol
----------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the putative class action complaint styled, Golden
vs. Popular, Inc., complained about Popular's purported practice of
charging overdraft fees on transactions that, under plaintiffs'
theory, do not overdraw the account.
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, "Popular recently received notice of a putative class action
complaint captioned Golden vs. Popular, Inc. filed on March 25,
2020 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, violation of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of New
York consumer protection law due to Popular's purported practice of
charging OD Fees on transactions that, under plaintiffs' theory, do
not overdraw the account. Plaintiff describes Popular's purported
practice of charging OD Fees as "Authorize Positive, Purportedly
Settle Negative Transactions" ("APPSN") and states that Popular
assesses OD Fees over authorized transactions for which sufficient
funds are held for settlement. Popular has not been served in
connection with this case."
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
PRINCETON, NJ: Saunders Appeals Ruling in Civil Suit to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William Hardy Saunders, Jr., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in his lawsuit styled William Saunders, Jr. v. Arts Council
of Princeton, et al., Case No. 3-19-cv-19018, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: William Saunders, Jr., et
al., Case No. 19-3702, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate
case is titled as William Saunders, Jr. v. Arts Council of
Princeton, et al., Case No. 19-3502, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.
Plaintiff-Petitioner WILLIAM HARDY SAUNDERS, JR., Artist and
Photographer, Member of Class Represent Minority Group; As
Individual; and On behalf Class All Other Persons Similarly
Situated John and Mary Does One Through Hundred Yet to Be
Identified and Determine Part of this Action a Suit for Damages, of
Princeton, New Jersey, appears pro se.
The Defendants are: ARTS COUNCIL OF PRINCETON; JIM LEVINE,
Executive Director; MARIA EVANS, Being Sued Individually; LIZ
LEMPERT, Mayor, Being Sued Individually; COUNCIL MEMBERS,
Individually and In Official Capacity; CITY MUNICIPALITY PRINCETON
NEW JERSEY; PRINCETON UNIVERSITY; LEWIS CENTER FOR THE ARTS; MUSEUM
OF ART FOR PRINCETON UNIVERSITY; PRINCETON HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
COMMISSION; and PUBLIC ART SELECTION COMMITTEE OF PRINCETON.[BN]
RADIANT LOGISTICS: Barahona Case Closed Upon Mutual Accord
----------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, 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 by mutual written agreement of the
parties, the case styled, Ingrid Barahona v. Accountabilities, Inc.
d/b/a/ Accountabilities Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics,
Inc. and DBA Distribution Services, Inc. (Ingrid Barahona
California Class Action), was dismissed by Order of the Court of
Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District,
Division 8.
The Company said, "On February 19, 2019, the Company filed a Motion
to Dismiss the class action case, which the court granted on March
14, 2019, and subsequently entered judgment in favor of the Company
on April 30, 2019. By mutual written agreement of the parties, the
matter was dismissed by Order of the Court of Appeals of the State
of California, Second Appellate District, Division 8 on February
28, 2020. This matter is closed."
Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics and
multi-modal transportation services company primarily in the United
States and Canada. Radiant Logistics, Inc. was founded in 2001 and
is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.
RAMCO ENTERPRISES: Appeals Ruling in Pantoja Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant RAMCO Enterprises, L.P., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Beatriz Pantoja, et al. v. RAMCO
Enterprises, L.P., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-03336-LHK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Lucy H.
Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, (i) granted the Plaintiff Carmela
Maribel Arroyo's motion to remand, and (ii) denied her request for
attorney's fees.
On Feb. 25, 2014, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant, a California
limited partnership, in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Monterey. The Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of a
putative class of all current and former employees of the Defendant
who were non-exempt under the Wage Order and who performed any work
for Defendants in California during the Class Period and were paid
any portion of their wages on a piece rate basis.
The appellate case is captioned as Beatriz Pantoja, et al. v. RAMCO
Enterprises, L.P., et al., Case No. 19-80154, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents BEATRIZ CISNEROS PANTOJA, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated employees, and CARMELA ARROYO
are represented by:
Charles Swanston, Esq.
FITZPATRICK, SPINI & SWANSTON
555 S. Main Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Telephone: 831-755-1311
- and -
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 South Figueroa, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-488-6555
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
Plaintiff-Respondent BEATRIZ CISNEROS PANTOJA, on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated employees, is represented by:
Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
Max William Gavron, Esq.
Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 South Figueroa, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-488-6555
E-mail: kagnew@diversitylaw.com
mgavron@diversitylaw.com
- and -
Jan Leslie Kahn, Esq.
Rissa Ann Stuart, Esq.
Robert B. Zumwalt, Esq.
KAHN, SOARES & CONWAY, LLP
219 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Telephone: 559-584-3337
E-mail: jkahn@kschanford.com
rstuart@kschanford.com
rzumwalt@kschanford.com
Defendant-Petitioner RAMCO ENTERPRISES, L.P., is represented by:
James D. Miller, Esq.
Anthony P. Raimondo, Esq.
RAIMONDO & ASSOCIATES, ALC
7110 N. Marks, Suite 104
Fresno, CA 93711
Telephone: 559-432-3000
E-mail: APR@raimondoassociates.com
jdm@raimondoassociates.com
- and -
Jan Leslie Kahn, Esq.
Rissa Ann Stuart, Esq.
Robert B. Zumwalt, Esq.
KAHN, SOARES & CONWAY, LLP
219 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Telephone: 559-584-3337
E-mail: jkahn@kschanford.com
rstuart@kschanford.com
rzumwalt@kschanford.com
RELIABLE PCA: Badon Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STACEY BADON on behalf of
herself and all those similarly situated v. RELIABLE PCA AND SIL
AGENCY, LLC AND QUENTINA DAWSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-12503-EEF-DMD
(E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
Collective Class consisting of:
"all persons employed by Defendants as home healthcare
workers since May 2017 who were paid on an hourly basis
but were not paid at an overtime rate of one and one-half
times their hourly rate of pay for each hour worked in
excess of 40 per week in violation of the FLSA, due to the
Defendants' deliberate and willful refusal to pay overtime
that was owed under the FLSA"; and
2. authorizing notice to allow potential members of the FLSA
Collective Class to opt in to preserve their rights.
The Defendants are doing business in home health care
business.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON+JACKSON
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 599-5953
Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
mjackson@jackson-law.net
RESORT MARKETING: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Charvat Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Johnson and Evan E. Shelton filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled PHILIP CHARVAT, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. ELIZABETH VALENTE, RESORT
MARKETING GROUP, INC., CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC, ROYAL CARIBBEAN
CRUISES, LTD., and NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., Case No. 1:12-cv-05746, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions.
The appellate case is captioned as Evan Shelton v. Elizabeth
Valente, et al., Case No. 19-3291, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee PHILIP J. CHARVAT, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
155 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-729-5288
E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
Appellants EVAN E. SHELTON and TIMOTHY JOHNSON are represented by:
Jonathan Lawrence Hilton, Esq.
HILTON PARKER LLC
10400 Blacklick-Eastern Road, N.W.
Pickerington, OH 43147
Telephone: 614-992-2277
E-mail: jhilton@hiltonparker.com
Defendant-Appellee CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Becker, Esq.
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
330 N. Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611-0000
Telephone: 312-321-8425
E-mail: jbecker@smbtrials.com
Defendant-Appellee NCL (BAHAMAS), LTD., is represented by:
Catherine MacIvor, Esq.
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, P.A.
Two S. Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 305-358-6555
E-mail: cmacivor@fflegal.com
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Golovac Seeks to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
A Motion for Leave to File to File [Proposed] Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of The Federal
Securities Law has been filed by Dr. Stanley Golovac in the case,
Takata v. Riot Blockchain, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02293
(D.N.J., Feb. 17, 2018).
Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that on February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed
an action asserting putative class action claims on behalf of the
Company's stockholders in the United District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3: 18-cv-02293.
The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of a putative class of stockholders that purchased
stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018. The
complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false
and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings
regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency
business.
The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and
fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.
On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint
against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-8031).
The complaint contained substantially similar allegations and the
same claims as those filed by Mr. Takata, and requests damages in
unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and
other unspecified relief.
On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order
consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class
action. The court also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and
Motely Rice as Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action.
Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2019.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 18, 2019. In lieu of
opposing defendants' motions to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff filed
another amended complaint on May 9, 2019.
Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss the amended complaint
starting on September 3, 2019.
On April 30, 2020, the court granted the motions to dismiss, which
resulted in the dismissal of all claims without prejudice.
Riot Blockchain said, "If Lead Plaintiff seeks to file another
amended complaint, defendants intend to continue to vigorously
contest Lead Plaintiff's amended allegations. Because this
litigation is still at this early stage, we cannot reasonably
estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the magnitude
of such an outcome, if any.
Riot Blockchain, Inc. focuses on building, supporting, and
operating blockchain technologies, primarily through its
cryptocurrency mining operations and other developed businesses, as
well as joint ventures, acquisitions, and targeted investments in
the sector. The company was formerly known as Bioptix, Inc. and
changed its name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. in October 2017. Riot
Blockchain, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Castle Rock,
Colorado.
RITE AID: Judge Certifies Class of Workers in Uniform Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal judge certified a
26,000-strong class of current and former Rite Aid employees who
say the pharmacy retailer violated state law by failing to
reimburse them for their uniforms, finding the alleged companywide
policy affected all of its workers in the state. [GN]
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Underway in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality
Group, Inc., et al.
On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company
violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime
wages, permit required meal and rest breaks and provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims.
This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California's
Private Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary
payments (Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et
al.; Case No RIC1804127).
Ruth's said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter,
including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably
estimated at this time, we intend to vigorously defend this
matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its
restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion
diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The
Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House
trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in
Winter Park, Florida.
RYDER SYSTEM: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?id=7341&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that 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.
Shareholders have until July 20, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the R lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Contact:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Web site: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/
[GN
RYDER SYSTEM: Pomerantz Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Ryder System, Inc. ("Ryder" or the "Company") (NYSE: R). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Ryder and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On July 30, 2019, Ryder drastically reduced its full-year 2019
earnings forecast, attributing the majority of the lowered guidance
to Ryder's weaker valuations of its tractors. On these
disclosures, Ryder's stock price fell $5.94 per share, or roughly
10%, to close at $53.38 per share on July 30, 2019.
Then, on October 29, 2019, Ryder disclosed that "management
concluded that our residual value estimates likely exceeded the
expected future values that would be realized upon the sale of
power vehicles in our fleet." As a result, Ryder significantly
lowered the residual values for all of its vehicles and incurred
$177 million in additional depreciation expense in the third
quarter of 2019. On these disclosures, Ryder's stock price fell
$6.68 per share, or 12.12%, over the following two trading
sessions, closing at $48.44 per share on October 30, 2019.
Finally, on February 13, 2020, Ryder reported that, as a result of
the significant reductions to the residual value of its fleet, it
had incurred a total of $357 million in depreciation expense for
2019 plus a loss of approximately $58 million on the sale of used
vehicles. Ryder also announced that, for 2020, it is expected to
incur another $275 million in depreciation expense on its fleet due
to the reductions in residual value plus an additional $20 million
estimated loss on used vehicle sales. On these disclosures,
Ryder's stock price fell $10.07 per share or 20.06%, over the
following two trading sessions, closing at $40.12 per share on
February 14, 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.
To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
Tel: 888.476.6529
Toll-Free: 888.4-POMLAW), Ext. 7980.
Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/
[GN]
SANTANDER BANK: Parrish Files Property Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santander Bank, N.A.
The case is styled as Joseph Parrish, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Santander Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:20-cv-00670-GLS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.
Santander Bank, N.A., is one of the country's largest retail and
commercial banks with more than $79 billion in assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq.
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
SCWORX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 15 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.
BBBY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bed-bath-beyond-inc-loss-form?prid=7363&wire=1
WORX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7363&wire=1
GRPN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/groupon-inc-loss-form?prid=7363&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY)
BBBY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 2, 2019
- February 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bed-bath-beyond-inc-loss-form?prid=7363&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Bed Bath
& Beyond Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to "aggressive disposition
of inventory," the Company lacked sufficient inventory in key
categories to support holiday sales; (2) the Company's internal
control over inventory levels and financial reporting was not
effective; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely
to experience reduced sales; 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.
SCWorx Corp. (WORX)
WORX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 13, 2020 -
April 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7363&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, SCWorx
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests
had previously misrepresented its operations; (2) SCWorx's buyer
was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the
purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) as a result, the
Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been overstated or
entirely fabricated; 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.
Groupon, Inc. (GRPN)
GRPN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 4, 2019
- February 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/groupon-inc-loss-form?prid=7363&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Groupon,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing fewer
customer engagements in its Goods category; (2) Groupon relied on
its Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the
holiday season; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; 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 -- http://www.zlk.com-- 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 [GN]
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Certification of Collective Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DALE EASTERWOOD, STEPHANIE
LAYNE-CAMERON, SHAMEKA PLATTE, ORLANDO RIVERA, AND SHANNON SMITH,
On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. SEDGWICK
CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation,
Case No. 6:19-cv-00700-WWB-LRH (M.D. Fla., Filed April 12, 2019),
the Parties ask the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of a collective action
on behalf of:
"all current and former employees of Sedgwick who process
and/or processed disability claims";
2. approving Court-authorized notice according to the
stipulated terms and procedures; and
3. granting the partial stay of discovery and extension of
pretrial dates.
The Plaintiffs contend they were classified as exempt from the Fair
Labor Standard's requirement to pay overtime compensation, were
paid a salary, and were not paid overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
Sedgwick Claims provides claims and productivity management
services.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
533 Versailles Drive, 2nd Floor
Maitland, FL 32751
Telephone: (407) 622-6544
Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
Email: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
The Defendants are represented by:
Robin A. Wofford, Esq.
Lois M. Kosch, Esq.
Katherine M. McCray, Esq.
Hang Alexandra Do, Esq.
WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP,
402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-9600
Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
E-mail: rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
kmccray@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
hdo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
- and -
Chad K. Lang, Esq.
SANCHEZ-MEDINA, GONZALEZ, QUESADA,
LAGE, GOMEZ & MACHADO LLP,
201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1205
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 377-1000
Facsimile: (855) 327-0391
E-mail: clang@smgqlaw.com
SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from a court
decision in the case, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v.
Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg and David Weinberg, is still
pending.
On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
a securities class action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a
five-month period in 2015, against the company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107.
On April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint and on July 24, 2018 plaintiffs filed a second amended
and consolidated complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015,
the company made materially false statements or omissions of
material fact about the anticipated performance of the company's
Domestic Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and equitable relief based on two counts
for alleged violations of federal securities laws.
On November 21, 2018 the company filed a motion to dismiss. On
January 10, 2019 plaintiffs filed an opposition and on February 11,
2019, the company filed a reply.
On September 23, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss without leave to amend and on October 22, 2019, the
plaintiffs appealed it to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, and on February 4, 2020, filed appellants'
opening brief.
Skechers said, "Given the early stage of this proceeding and the
limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of
this legal proceeding or whether an adverse result in this case
would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial
position. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to
defend this matter vigorously."
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.
SKECHERS USA: Setlement Reached in Guzman Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a settlement has been
reached by the parties in the class action suit entitled, Jose
Zavala Guzman v. Team One Employment Specialists, Skechers USA,
Inc. et al.
On April 2, 2019, Jose Guzman, a Team One employee, filed a class
action lawsuit against Team One and the company in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles County, Case No.
19STCV11006.
The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations, and seeks
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and
restitution. This complaint was followed by a Private Attorney
General's Act Notice, specifying the same allegations raised in the
complaint.
This matter was tendered to the company's insurance carrier, and
the company is currently investigating the allegations.
Co-defendant Team-One has filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which the company has joined in. The hearing that was originally
set for January 30, 2020 was postponed pending a March 16, 2020
mediation and the matter is otherwise stayed until then.
The parties reached a settlement in principle as a result of the
March 16, 2020 mediation but the details of the settlement still
need to be worked out and the settlement has to be documented.
Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.
SOHA DESIGNS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soha Designs Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Soha Designs Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04578
(S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SoHa is short for South of Hawai'i, SoHa Living, embodies a
lifestyle of leisure, vacation, discovery, coastal chic and
tropical luxury.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Faruqi Reminds of July 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SRNE) of
the July 27, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a
federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.
If you invested in Sorrento stock or options between May 15, 2020
and May 22, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/SRNE. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
Contact:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292
(212) 983-9330
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all those who
purchased Sorrento common stock between May 15, 2020 and May 22,
2020 (the "Class Period"). The case, Wasa Medical Holdings v.
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 3:20-cv-00966 was filed on
May 26, 2020, and has been assigned to Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) the Company's
initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro virus infection
will not necessarily translate to success or safety in vivo, or in
person; and (2) the Company's finding was not a "cure" for
COVID-19.
On May 15, 2020, Sorrento announced that it had discovered an
antibody that had "demonstrated 100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 virus
infection." On that same day, Defendant Henry Ji, founder and Chief
Executive Officer of Sorrento, referred to Sorrento's breakthrough
as a "cure." On this news, Sorrento shares increased $4.14 to close
at $6.76 on May 15, 2020. The stock continued to increase after
hours and opened at $9.98 on May 18, 2020, trading at a high of
$10.00 that same day, which represented an increase of 281.7% from
the May 14, 2020 closing price.
Then, on May 20, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting
the validity of Sorrento's claims that it had discovered an
antibody demonstrating "100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 virus
infection," and calling them "sensational," "nonsense" and "too
good to be true."
On this news, Sorrento shares closed at $5.70 per share on May 20,
2020, representing a decline of $4.30, or 43.0%, from the Class
Period high.
Finally, on May 22, 2020, BioSpace published an article stating
that in a May 21, 2020 interview with Defendants Ji and Brunswick,
Ji "insist[ed] that they did not say it was a cure." On this news,
Sorrento shares closed at $5.07 per share on May 22, 2020,
representing a decline of $4.93, or 49.4%, from the Class Period
high.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Sorrento's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Sorrento
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Sorrento" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:SRNE) 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 May 15,
2020 and May 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 27, 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. Sorrento announced an initial finding of
"100% inhibition" of an in vitro virus infection, but this finding
will not necessarily translate to safety or success in person or in
vivo. The Company did not find a "cure" for COVID-19. 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 Sorrento, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Office: 310-301-3335
http://www.schallfirm.com/
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
[GN]
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: In Last-Ditch Effort to Avoid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that government-owned entity
Southern Response is engaged in a last-ditch effort to avoid an
opt-out class action over allegations regarding earthquake
insurance settlement claims. Policyholders have asserted that
Southern Response withheld information allowing them to underpay
when settling claims related to the Canterbury earthquake. [GN]
SPECTRUM BRANDS: August 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY
BRANCH 3
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT
ASSOCIATION, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SPECTRUM BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC.,
DAVID M. MAURA, JOSEPH S.
STEINBERG, GEORGE C. NICHOLSON,
CURTIS GLOVIER, FRANK IANNA, GERALD
LUTERMAN, ANDREW A. MCKNIGHT,
ANDREW WHITTAKER and HRG GROUP, INC.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2019-CV-000982
Case Code: 30301 (Money Judgment)
Hon. Valerie L. Bailey-Rihn
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All Persons and Entities That Purchased or Otherwise Acquired
the Common Stock of Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. ("Spectrum" or
the "Company"), as Successor-in-Interest to HRG Group, Inc.
("HRG"), Pursuant or Traceable to the Registration Statement for
the July 13, 2018, Merger of Spectrum Brands Legacy, Inc. ("Old
Spectrum") and HRG (the "Settlement Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Circuit Court
of the State of Wisconsin, Dane County, and Wis. Stat. §803.08,
that Plymouth County Retirement Association ("Plaintiff" or
"Plymouth County"), on behalf of itself and all other members of
the proposed Settlement Class, on the one hand, and David M. Maura,
Joseph S. Steinberg, George C. Nicholson, Curtis Glovier, Frank
Ianna, Gerald Luterman, Andrew A. McKnight, Andrew Whittaker, and
HRG (collectively, "Defendants"), on the other, have reached a
proposed settlement of the above-captioned action (the "Action") in
the amount of $9,000,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action
in its entirety (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Valerie L. Bailey-Rihn
on August 20, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 8107 at the Circuit
Court of the State of Wisconsin, Dane County Courthouse, 215 South
Hamilton Street, Madison, WI 53703 (the "Settlement Hearing") to
determine whether the Court should, among other things: (i) approve
the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii)
dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of May 1, 2020; (iii) approve
the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense
Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement
Hearing, or hold it telephonically, without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to
receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the
Settlement, www.spectrumbrandssettlement.com, or by contacting the
Claims Administrator at:
Spectrum Brands Holdings Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173104
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(800) 328-6074
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
(888) 219-6877
settlementquestions@labaton.com
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than October 2,
2020. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely
submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than July 30, 2020. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must
be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
filed and received no later than July 30, 2020.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS,
OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
Dated: June 15, 2020
BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, DANE
COUNTY [GN]
STATE FARM: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Awarded $2.8 Million in Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that a group
of plaintiffs' attorneys, most of whom were involved in a
controversial 2015 class-action suit, were recently awarded $2.8
million in fees for a class settlement against State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co.
Attorney Matt Keil of the Texarkana firm Keil & Goodson, in a court
filing in the case in U.S. District Court in Texarkana, touted the
fee amount as being "fair, reasonable, commensurate with the
results obtained for Class Members, and consistent with Eighth
Circuit precedent."
Keil said the "amount to be paid" to the class is $8.5 million,
meaning the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees represent about a third of
that amount. Keil also noted in the filing that the fees would be
"just 24% of the total monetary benefit [about $11.7 million]
achieved for the common benefit of the Class."
But State Farm had a problem with Keil's math. "[P]laintiffs
represent that 'the amount to be paid to the Class'" is $8.5
million, Jacob Kahn of Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP of Chicago,
one of State Farm's attorneys, wrote in a footnote in a May 22
court document. "That asserted valuation assumes that every Class
Member will submit a valid claim and that State Farm will not
prevail on any of its challenges to those claims."
If policyholders don't file a claim, they won't get paid.
Most class members don't bother filling out claims, and nationally
the rate is typically between 8% and 15%. The settlement suggests
that State Farm would retain any unclaimed portion of the
settlement. The terms said that State Farm wouldn't take a position
on legal fees.
The claims deadline is July 1, and about 17,800 notices have been
mailed.
Keil's law partner, John Goodson, also was one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys along with: A.F. "Tom" Thompson III and Kenneth "Casey"
Castleberry of Murphy Thompson Arnold Skinner & Castleberry of
Batesville; Stevan E. Vowell of Taylor Law Partners of
Fayetteville; Matthew L. Mustokoff and Richard A. Russo Jr. of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP of Radnor, Pennsylvania; James M.
Pratt Jr. of Camden; and Richard E. Norman and R. Martin Weber Jr.
of Crowley Norman LLP of Houston.
Neither Keil nor Goodson, who is chairman of the board of trustees
for the University of Arkansas System, returned calls seeking
comment.
Goodson and his firm have been involved in dozens of class-action
cases resolved with hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a strategy
Goodson routinely used to force settlements in Miller County
Circuit Court was a violation of federal law.
On June 2, Chief U.S. District Judge Susan O. Hickey of the Western
District of Arkansas awarded the plaintiffs' attorneys $2.8 million
in fees plus $400,000 in expenses in the State Farm case.
"The Settlement provides substantial monetary benefits to Class
Members who timely submit completed Claim Forms," Hickey wrote in
her order.
Hickey also said that the plaintiffs' attorneys "have fairly and
adequately represented and protected the interests of the
Settlement Class . . ."
In addition to Kahn, attorneys for State Farm were Joseph Cancila
Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com -- also of Riley Safer Holmes &
Cancila, and John Moore -- john.moore@mrmblaw.com -- and
Beverly Rowlett -- beverly.rowlett@mrmblaw.com -- of Munson Rowlett
Moore & Boone of Little Rock.
The case was first filed in Miller County Circuit Court in 2013 and
moved to U.S. District Court in 2014.
Plaintiffs alleged that State Farm underpaid homeowners' claims for
structural damage by depreciating labor costs when adjusting
property loss claims. The class period covers between May 1, 2010,
and Dec. 6, 2013.
State Farm had denied -- and still denies -- any wrongdoing.
The allegations were similar to those made against United Services
Automobile Association by the plaintiffs' attorneys in the State
Farm case, except for Pratt and Russo.
In 2016, Goodson, Keil, Thompson, Castleberry, Vowell, Mustokoff,
Norman and Weber were among 17 lawyers sanctioned by P.K. Holmes
III, chief federal judge for the Western District of Arkansas, for
engaging in "forum shopping" in the USAA case. Goodson and others
appealed the order to the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals, which
overturned Holmes' sanctions. [GN]
SUBARU CORP: Recent Vehicle Recalls Turn Into Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Flierl of Torque News reports that Subaru's recent recall of
2019 Outback, Ascent, Impreza, and Legacy models over defective
fuel pumps, has now turned into a class-action lawsuit. In April,
Subaru and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) announced fuel pumps in these models could fail causing the
engine to stall without the ability to restart the engine,
increasing the risk of a crash. The recall affects 188,207 U.S.
vehicles, but the new lawsuit significantly expands the number.
Top Class Actions reports the new lawsuit against Subaru will
include more models than the initial recall. It will include
2017-2019 Subaru Outback, Ascent, Impreza, and Legacy models. Other
Subaru vehicles and additional model years (2013-2019) may also be
affected and are being considered. The new class-action suit also
includes Honda and Acura vehicles.
2019 Subaru Outback, 2019 Subaru Ascent, 2019 Subaru Impreza, 2019
Subaru Legacy fuel pump recall
The latest Subaru lawsuit has been filed in the Alabama federal
court. This lawsuit details two plaintiffs' defective 2017 Subaru
Outback experiences. The lawsuit states Subaru knew about or should
have known about the fuel pump defect "after running countless
tests and diagnostics throughout production, yet continued to
manufacture, market, sell, and lease their vehicles without
disclosing the defect to the public."
The supplier, Denso International America located in Michigan,
supplied Subaru with the defective "low pressure" fuel pump prior
to July 2019 and began using a new fuel pump with filter, with a
higher density impeller after that date.
2019 Subaru Outback, 2019 Subaru Ascent, 2019 Subaru Impreza, 2019
Subaru Legacy fuel pump recall
The class action says the NHTSA database includes complaints filed
by vehicle owners outside of the 2019 recall scope and that Subaru
knew about the defective fuel pumps as far back as 2013. It calls
for Subaru to be held responsible for fixing the fuel pumps "that
put owners and lessees in a greater position of danger and possible
death," but that they also include any and all Subaru vehicles
equipped with the faulty fuel pumps across the years into their
recall program moving forward.
What should owners do?
If you own or have leased a 2019 Outback, Ascent, Impreza, and
Legacy model and if you own or have leased a 2013-2019 Subaru
vehicle with a Denso low-pressure fuel pump, and have experienced
engine problems such as reduced engine power, stalling, and/or
engine shutdown due to a faulty fuel pump, you may qualify to join
this investigation. You can contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss
potential legal claims. [GN]
TABLEAU SOFTWARE: July 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Tableau Software Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CARRIE SCHEUFELE, JEFFREY SCHEUFELE
and NICHOLAS ORAM, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TABLEAU SOFTWARE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-05753-JGK
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
TABLEAU SOFTWARE, INC.'S CLASS A COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 5,
2015 AND FEBRUARY 4, 2016, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, that the above-captioned securities class
action lawsuit (the "Litigation") is currently pending against
Tableau Software, Inc., and certain of its former officers and/or
directors before the Honorable John G. Koeltl, United States
District Judge, Southern District of New York. Additional details
regarding the parties to this lawsuit can be accessed at the case
website.
The Court certified as a "Class" all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Tableau Software, Inc.'s
("Tableau" or the "Company") Class A common stock between February
5, 2015 and February 4, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and
were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants,
present or former executive officers of Tableau, and their
immediate family members (as defined in 17 C.F.R. Section 229.404,
Instructions (1)(a)(iii) and 1(b)(ii)).
The Court has directed that notice of the Court's certification of
the Litigation as a class action on behalf of the Class be provided
to such persons and entities. The Court has not determined that
Defendants did anything wrong and this Notice is not an admission
by Defendants or an expression of any opinion of the Court
concerning the merits of the lawsuit, or a finding by the Court
that the claims asserted by the Plaintiff in this case are valid.
Defendants have not been ordered to pay any money. No settlement
has been reached. There is no money available now and no guarantee
that there will be in the future.
If you purchased or acquired Tableau Class A common stock during
the Class Period, you may be a "Class Member" and your rights may
be affected by this Litigation. If you have not received a copy of
the detailed "Notice of Pendency of Class Action," you may obtain a
copy by contacting the Notice Administrator at: Tableau Securities
Litigation Notice Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box
43398, Providence, RI 02940-3398, or by calling 1-888-788-4733, or
by downloading a copy at www.TableauSecuritiesLitigation.com. If
you are a Class Member and did not receive the Notice by mail,
please send your name and address to the Notice Administrator so
that if any future notices are disseminated in connection with the
Litigation, you will receive them.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Court-appointed Class Counsel:
David A. Rosenfeld
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631/367-7100
631/367-1173 (fax)
www.rgrdlaw.com
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you want to remain a member of the
Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in Tableau
Class A common stock. You will automatically be included in the
applicable Class, and you will be bound by the proceedings in this
Litigation, including all past, present and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Class Member and do not wish to remain a member of the
Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Class. To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion to the Notice Administrator postmarked no later than
July 21, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
mailed Notice. If you choose to exclude yourself, you cannot get
money or benefits recovered, if any are awarded, at a later date.
This Notice is only a summary. For more information visit
www.TableauSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-888-788-4733.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE
DATED: May 12, 2020
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
[GN]
TECHNIPFMC PLC: July 25 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JOSEPH PRAUSE, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated.
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNIPFMC PLC, TORE HALVORSEN,
MARYANN T. MANNEN, DOUGLAS J.
PFERDEHIRT, and DIANNE B. RALSTON
Defendants.
Case No. 4:17-cv-02368
CLASS ACTION
Honorable Alfred H. Bennett
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO:
ALL PURCHASERS AND ACQUIRERS OF TECHNIPFMC PLC COMMON STOCK DURING
THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 16, 2017 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY 24,
2017 (THE "CLASS PERIOD").
Excluded from the Class are the defendants, officers and directors
of TechnipFMC and members of their immediate families and their
legal representative, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity
in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), entered March 9,
2020, certifying the above action as a Class Action (the "Action").
This Action has not been settled and continues to be litigated.
Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected by this
Action and you may have the right to participate in any recovery.
You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class by
sending a request for exclusion postmarked by July 25, 2020 in
accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, which is available on the website,
www.technipfmcsecuritieslitigation.com. That Notice of Pendency of
Class Action describes the Class Action and your rights with
respect thereto.
If you have not received a Postcard Notice by mail, please contact
us in writing:
TechnipFMC Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91369
Seattle, WA 98111
info@technipfmcsecuritieslitigation.com
www.technipfmcsecuritieslitigation.com
Telephone: 1-877-545-0232
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel:
Austin Van, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: 212-661-1100
Facsimile: 212-661-8665
Inquiries should not be directed to the Court, the Clerk's office,
the Defendants, or Defendants' counsel. If you have any questions,
visit www.technipfmcsecuritieslitigation.com or call toll-free at
1-877-545-0232.
By Order of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
[GN]
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Findings of Facts in Securities Suit Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York held that all legal claims and defenses
presented in the case, OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM
et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03021-JMF (S.D. N.Y.), were
non-frivolous under existing law, and that all factual contentions
had evidentiary support or were reasonably based on belief or a
lack of information.
On April 5, 2018, Bristol County Retirement System, on behalf of
itself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the
American Depositary Shares ("ADS") of Ericsson between April 8,
2013 and July 17, 2017, inclusive, filed a putative class action
complaint in the District Court, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934.
The Initial Complaint named Ericsson and the following executives
of the Company as Defendants: Hans Vestberg, President and CEO
before July 25, 2016; Jan Frykhammar, CFO before July 25, 2016,
acting CEO between July 25, 2016 and Jan. 15, 2017, and EVP until
Nov. 7, 2017; Börje E. Ekholm, President and CEO after Jan. 16,
2017; Carl Mellander, acting CFO from July 25, 2016 through March
31, 2017, and CFO after April 1, 2017; and Magnus Mandersson, EVP
and head of the Global Services segment at all relevant times, and
Advisor to the CEO from July 1, 2016 through Nov. 7, 2017.
The law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP acted as the counsel to
Bristol County in investigating, preparing, and filing the Initial
Complaint.
On July 24, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order appointing
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiff,
designating Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the lead counsel,
and establishing a schedule for the filing of a consolidated
amended complaint ("AC"). The Court then granted the Plaintiffs an
extension of time to file the AC until Oct. 22, 2018.
On Dec. 21, 2018, the Defendants -- represented by the law firm of
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP -- filed a joint
motion to dismiss the AC under Rules 9(b), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On Jan. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs, represented by Robbins Geller,
filed the second amended complaint ("SAC"). The Defendants sought
a dismissal of the SAC. By January 2020, the Court granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and gave the Plaintiffs leave to
amend the SAC.
On Feb. 10, 2020, Joseph Russello sent a letter to the Court
thanking it for the opportunity to amend, and advising the Court
that, after due consideration, the Plaintiffs had decided not to
amend the SAC. In the wake of Mr. Russello's letter, the Court
issued an Order on Feb. 12, 2020, dismissing the action with
prejudice. Because that dismissal constituted a final adjudication
of the action, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to file proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law for the Court's
consideration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(c)(1).
Judge Furman finds that all the parties and their counsel had a
reasonable and good-faith basis to assert their respective
arguments and positions during the litigation. The Judge also
finds that the parties and each of their attorneys complied with
the requirements of Rule 11(b). Based upon these findings of fact
and conclusions of law, the Judge has determined, and now holds,
that all the legal claims and defenses presented in the lawsuit
were non-frivolous under existing law, and that all factual
contentions had evidentiary support or were reasonably based on
belief or a lack of information.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Findings of
Facts is available at https://is.gd/9TS91S from Leagle.com.
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joseph Frank Russello --
jrussello@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, William
John Geddish -- wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Bristol County Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul
McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton & Sucharow LLP &
Christopher J. Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow,
LLP.
Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, Movant, represented
by Carol Cecilia Villegas, Labaton & Sucharow LLP, Christopher J.
Keller, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Jake E. Bissell-Linsk, Labaton &
Sucharow LLP, Joseph Frank Russello, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Hans Vestberg, Jan Frykhammar,
Magnus Mandersson, Borje E. Ekholm & Carl Mellander, Defendants,
represented by Brad Scott Karp -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss, Daniel Jonathan Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss, Susanna Michele Buergel -- sbuergel@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss & Maxwell Arlie Halpern Kosman -- mkosman@paulweiss.com --
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Minnick & Perales Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: TERRAVIA HOLDINGS, INC., SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-06633-JD (N.D. Cal.), the proposed
Class Representatives Casey Minnick and Reuben Perales will move
the Court on August 20, 2020, for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons other than the Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired TerraVia Holdings, Inc. securities
between May 4, 2016 and November 6, 2016, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by the 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";
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives;
3. appointing their counsel of choice, Pomerantz LLP; and
4. granting such other and further relief the Court may deem
just and proper.
TerraVia develops specialty food products and ingredients. The
company offers algae-based food, nutrition, and a range of
specialty personal care ingredients.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 229-8811
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
lcludwig@pomlaw.com
jpafiti@pomlaw.com
TRADER JOE'S: Webb Appeals Consumer Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christina Webb filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Christina Webb v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No.
3:19-cv-01587-CAB-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Cathy
Ann Bencivengo of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California has dismissed the case with prejudice.
Christina Webb filed the putative consumer class action complaint
against Defendant Trader Joe's in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, on July 10, 2019, and the Defendant removed
the action to the California District Court on Aug. 23, 2019. The
complaint asserts claims for violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (the "UCL"); violation of California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"); Breach of Express and Implied Warranties;
Theft by False Pretenses; and Unjust Enrichment/Money Had and
Received.
The appellate case is captioned as Christina Webb v. Trader Joe's
Company, Case No. 19-56389, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTINA WEBB, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented
by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Michael Houchin
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
mike@consumersadvocates.com
Defendant-Appellee TRADER JOE'S COMPANY is represented by:
Angel Antonio Garganta, Esq.
Amit Rana, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
101 California Street, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-653-3735
E-mail: agarganta@venable.com
arana@venable.com
UFC: Awaits Decision on Antitrust Class Action Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gift, writing for Forbes, reports that with one word, the
antitrust lawsuit filed against the UFC by now-former fighters
snapped back into reality after an eight-month hiatus as Judge
Richard Boulware of the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas closes in
on a decision on whether the case should be certified as a class
action.
Boulware's tease of a forthcoming decision came as he issued a
ruling on a few miscellaneous motions, granting motions to seal and
declining to reinstate a portion of the previously stricken
testimony of former UFC matchmaker Joe Silva.
While it might be tempting to think the UFC's back is against the
proverbial cage as the world's largest MMA promoter with fighter
compensation calculated at 19.5% of event revenues, antitrust cases
are not easy to win. You don't go into court and say the UFC is
big, it pays its fighters a lower share of event revenues than
similar metrics in the Big Four sports, therefore it's guilty of
"being a monopoly." That's not how antitrust cases work.
Plaintiffs will eventually need to prove the UFC possessed monopoly
and monopsony power, willfully acquired and maintained said power,
and caused antitrust injury, but the immediate concern is making
sure their case doesn't disappear entirely.
Much is on the line with this ruling. In a case where plaintiffs
are seeking $800 million to $1.6 billion in damages and where legal
fees for each side could easily be in the mid-eight figure range,
Boulware has already described class certification as a
make-or-break moment. "I can't see the case proceeding if I don't
grant the motion to certify," Boulware noted at last August's class
certification hearings.
So what should we expect in Boulware's forthcoming decision? While
we can't peak inside his mind, here are some things to consider
based on my review of most every significant public document in
this case and attendance at last year's hearings.
Boulware's decision to certify the class will essentially boil down
to his assessment of the work of the plaintiffs primary expert
witness, Hal Singer.
To have a lawsuit certified as a class action, plaintiffs need to
show that their case satisfies four criteria: numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Based on the judge's lines
of questioning in last year's hearings, it appears two of those
criteria, commonality and typicality, can essentially be distilled
into one question: Does Boulware believe Singer's regression and
modeling work made it "past some threshold . . . something that I
would find, if proven, would essentially establish, you know, an
antitrust claim," as he previously mentioned?
Singer admits his work is out of the norm -- using wage share
instead of absolute wage levels in attempting to show that fighter
compensation was reduced due to the UFC's alleged abuse of monopoly
and monopsony power.
Most important points of contention are all very academic at this
stage -- Ph.Ds arguing over regressions is one way to think of it.
On the UFC side, expert witness Paul Oyer claims wage share was
"dreamed up" by Singer and academic research papers ". . . never
run a regression the way Singer did, never. Literally never." Yet
plaintiffs believe Singer's use of wage share is acceptable because
MMA is special, "a very unique space in which the fighter is the
product."
How much weight will Boulware give the plaintiffs' academic
citation regarding fighters as the product?
When asked if he performed a decomposition of fighter and UFC
contributions to revenue, Singer responded, ". . . I lean more
heavily on that academic article that we looked at that showed that
the fighters are the ones that are making the material contribution
. . . "
The article in question is a purported analysis of UFC pay-per-view
buyrates published in the Journal of Business and Economics. The
UFC claims it is a "completely fraudulent" journal with a name
similar to the very legitimate Journal of Economics and Business.
According to the UFC, the publisher of the allegedly fraudulent
journal has at least three warnings from academic conferences for
phishing scams.
When confronted with this issue in court, Boulware wondered how he
would be able to make a finding that the journal is in fact
fraudulent and seemed to suggest the issue had been raised too
late. ". . . for the years that this litigation has been going on I
have no idea why all of a sudden and how old this article is, why
is it this is just now being brought to my attention?" he said.
How deep will Boulware dive into the expert reports and academic
citations?
The judge has already made clear his decision will be based solely
on the testimony and expert reports. The problem is, if I were
picking winners, the plaintiffs won the testimony while the UFC
took the expert reports.
While testifying on the witness stand, Singer was masterful. Cool,
calm, and collected, he explained things clearly, emphasized
important points, even backing up when needed, avoided potential
pitfalls, and absolutely refused to ever make an admission that
wasn't in the plaintiffs interest. He'd always find a way to work
an answer around a tough question.
On the UFC side, their primary expert witness Robert Topel had
problems from the beginning. An initial example meant to illustrate
why wage share is an unreliable metric would haunt him throughout
his testimony. He was regularly interrupted by the judge and could
never quite get them see eye-to-eye. He also missed a few openings
to make an important point. Other UFC experts -- Oyer and Roger
Blair -- were better able to connect with the judge and make their
arguments, but Boulware might've already made up his mind in
certain areas.
Throughout the August hearings, Boulware seemed to be more amenable
to the plaintiffs' side of the case, their explanations for using
metrics like wage share, and their arguments why particular
regression results made sense or were problematic. While neither
side's expert witnesses were truly experts in MMA, Boulware seemed
just as new to the MMA space and appeared to be learning about the
fight game as he went along.
Is he thinking he might be presiding over a historic Curt
Flood-type moment for the sport? It's hard to say. What's much
easier to say is that if he digs deeper into the minutia of the
case -- the expert reports and academic citations -- his thoughts
might be challenged.
Last October, I wrote about four games I believed were being played
by the plaintiffs in this case. And to be clear, the UFC is not
immune to the same criticism. In 2018, it submitted a
head-scratching declaration from MMA manager Ali Abdelaziz claiming
that disclosure of fighter pay information would "hinder" him in
obtaining the best possible deal for a fighter. The difference,
though, is the UFC's game was played in an effort to keep its
proprietary financial information sealed from public view while
plaintiffs' were played in an effort to keep their case alive.
With Game 1, how much will the judge notice and appreciate that
plaintiffs' regression model is only grounded in MMA reality in
1-of-4 key relationships (UFC's is 4-of-4) and Singer's attempt to
salvage the situation by testifying that prior wins are "very
highly correlated" with winning the current fight doesn't seem to
make fight sense (and didn't appear to be corroborated with my own
analyses)?
With Game 2, Boulware has mentioned he has experience with
statistics and regression models, but how sharp are his marginal
effects skills to work through the two sides' arguments on
proportionality (an artificial restriction imposed by Singer's
model forcing UFC revenues and fighter pay to move proportionally
together)? Will he catch that fighter pay "is mostly set before –
almost entirely, actually, it's set before the actual event," a
statement by plaintiffs' expert Alan Manning? If event revenue
doubled out-of-the-blue for a particular show for some unknown
reason, by what real-world mechanism would fighter pay double?
It doesn't seem like the judge will give Game 3 much attention at
the class certification stage, but with Game 4, will Boulware
review disputed academic citations? Will he notice that while they
utilize various forms of wage shares, they don't use a wage share
regression to assess monopsony power?
"You misrepresented this to me."
In an unrelated lawsuit, a potentially-concerning sequence of
events involving Singer and plaintiffs' attorney Joshua Davis took
place this past March. The following information is from court
documents and transcripts.
Singer and Davis were both on the plaintiffs' side of an antitrust
lawsuit alleging price fixing in the capacitors industry. As an
expert witness, Singer performed a qualitative analysis of
suspicious communications between companies in an alleged
price-fixing cartel, among other tasks.
When the defense filed a Daubert motion to have Singer's work
excluded, the judge granted the motion in part, stating that
Singer's "opinions that are based on 'criteria recognized by
antitrust agencies as indicative of anticompetitive conduct' are
not admissible." The antitrust agencies being referenced were the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
While opinions based on their guidelines were excluded, Singer was
allowed to form opinions based on qualitative criteria recognized
by economists.
At issue was an apparent exhibit summarizing Singer's findings
regarding suspicious communications. In a court session after
Singer had already testified in the case, defense attorneys
appeared to raise the question of whether Singer had in fact relied
on DOJ or FTC guidelines in the making of the exhibit under
scrutiny.
"And so what he's done here, Your Honor is we think an end run
around Your Honor's ruling saying he could not offer opinions based
on those guidelines . . ." the defense said.
In an apparent effort to clear up any confusion, the following
sequence of events took place, per court transcripts. "The Court"
is the judge.
THE COURT: Is he here right now? Bring him in. We'll do it right
now out of the presence of the jury.
(Dr. Singer takes the stand.)
THE COURT: Do you need to re-swear him, Lisa?
THE CLERK: No. Remind him that he's still under oath.
THE COURT: You can sit down. Okay. Dr. Singer, you're still under
oath. Now, looking at Demonstrative 17, did you base any of those
numbers on DOJ or FTC guidelines?
THE WITNESS: I would say that I based the numbers on the economic
criteria that I spelled out yesterday. And if you were to line up
the criteria that I identified yesterday --
THE COURT: Just give me a "yes" or "no." Did you base any of those
numbers on the DOJ or FTC guidelines? Yes or no?
THE WITNESS: Yes. In part, yes.
THE COURT: All right. Chart is out. I'm going to tell the jury to
disregard it. I told you not to do that. You assured me several
times that had not happened. He just said it did. So the chart is
out, and I'm a little mad. Okay. I'm going to make a point of
telling the jury that that chart is going to be disregarded.
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, may I make any argument on this?
THE COURT: What are you going to say? He just said, yes, he used
it. What's the argument? I should say, what's the spin?
MR. DAVIS: He testified at deposition --
THE COURT: He's right here, Counsel, and he just answered my
question yes.
MR. DAVIS: If the questions aren't going to be based on --
THE COURT: Is this the old Richard Pryor line? Are you going to
believe me or my lying eyes? Which one? He just said yes. What can
you possibly say that's going to spin a yes?
MR. DAVIS: He had two independent bases, both of which were
sufficient in his testimony --
THE COURT: That's not the point. He relied on DOJ-FTC guidelines in
these numbers. He just said yes. He can't rely on that at all. I
don't care whether he has 100 independent bases; he did the one
thing he can't do. He relied on that -- on those guidelines. You
told me he didn't.
MR. DAVIS: I was very explicit about what he did, and I was
accurate in what I said.
THE COURT: You were not. That's an unprofessional comment, and you
are wrong. And I'm running out of patience.
MR. DAVIS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You missed -- don't take your binders away. We're not
done talking.
MR. DAVIS: I apologize.
THE COURT: You misrepresented this to me. That was a flat-out
misrepresentation. You stood in that well and you told me he did
not do this. The witness just said, yes, he did. I have half a mind
to consider whether professional sanctions are appropriate or
whether you should continue to -- allowed to be continuing your
exam. You are suspect in my eyes now. You can sit down.
In a subsequent court filing attempting to convince the judge that
a limiting instruction should be given to the jury rather than
striking Singer's entire testimony, the capacitor plaintiffs
referred to Singer's testimony as "improper."
While this was a completely separate lawsuit, it raises the
question of whether something similar could potentially be
happening in the UFC case, especially in what I refer to as Game 1:
Do Prior Wins Predict Current Wins? It took the judge in the
capacitors case until the trial phase to determine there was a
"flat-out misrepresentation." In the UFC case, outside observers
may not be in a position to make such a determination, but keep an
eye peeled for this issue down the line if certification is granted
and the lawsuit progresses.
We should know soon how Boulware rules on certification and,
therefore, which side will request an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
If one looked solely at the testimony, it would be easy to predict
that Boulware would grant certification. But he and his staff have
had more than eight months to pore through the documentary details
of the case. Did that evidence convince him Singer's work doesn't
meet his minimum standard for plausibility, or did the plaintiffs
convince Boulware that MMA is unique?
We'll know soon enough. And whatever the outcome, Boulware's
opinion will be must-read for MMA fans interested in the business
and legal side of the sport.
A request for comment on the events of the capacitors case was sent
to Mr. Davis. No response was received as of this writing. [GN]
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal
from the court-granted motion for judgment in the case styled,
Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel
Service, Inc., remains pending.
The company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws.
One of these matters, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.
and United Parcel Service, Inc. had previously been certified as a
class action in Kentucky state court.
In the second quarter of 2019, the court granted the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings related to the wage-and-hour
claims.
The plaintiffs have appealed this decision.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
"At this time, the company do not believe that any loss associated
with any matter would have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity," UPS
said.
United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.
UNITED STATES: Appeals Decision in ACRL Suit to Sixth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Donald Trump, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Arab American Civil Rights League,
et al. v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-10310, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
The appellate case is captioned as Arab American Civil Rights
League, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 19-2375, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Defendants-Appellants are William P. Barr, Kenneth T.
Cuccinelli, Joseph Maguire, Kevin K. McAleenan, Mark A. Morgan,
Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence, Michael R. Pompeo,
Donald J. Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, DHS, DOJ, DOS and USA.
The lawsuit arises from alleged civil rights violations.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
filed an appeal in the lawsuit. That appellate case is entitled as
In re: DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al.,
Case No. 19-114.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees ARAB AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE, on behalf
of itself, its members, and its clients; AMERICAN ARAB CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, on behalf of itself and its members; ARAB AMERICAN
STUDIES ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members; HEND
ALSHAWISH; SALIM ALSHAWISH; KALTUM SALEH, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated;and FAHMI JAHAF are represented
by:
Nabih H. Ayad, Esq.
NABIH H. AYAD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
645 Griswold Street, Suite 2202
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: 313-983-4600
E-mail: ayadlaw@hotmail.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees ARAB AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE, on behalf
of itself, its members, is represented by:
Natalie C. Qandah, Esq.
VIDA LAW GROUP
43050 Ford Road, Suite 160
Canton, MI 48187
Telephone: 734-456-9004
Plaintiffs-Appellees AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN, on
behalf of itself and its members; AMERICAN ARAB CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, on behalf of itself and its members; and ARAB AMERICAN
STUDIES ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members; and
KALTUM SALEH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
1514 Wealthy Street, S.E., Suite 242
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
Telephone: (616) 301-0930
E-mail: maukerman@aclumich.org
- and -
Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN
2966 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: 313-578-6824
E-mail: dankorob@umich.edu
Plaintiff-Appellee ARAB AMERICAN & CHALDEAN COUNCIL, on behalf of
itself and its members, is represented by:
Alyson Sandler, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: 202-662-6000
E-mail: asandler@cov.com
Defendants-Appellants DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United
States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting
Secretary of Homeland Security; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Acting
Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; MARK A.
MORGAN, Senior Official Performing the Functions and Duties of the
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; MICHAEL R.
POMPEO, Secretary of State; WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General;
JOSEPH MAGUIRE, Acting Director of National Intelligence; and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are represented by:
H. Thomas Byron, III, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: 202-616-5367
E-mail: h.thomas.byron@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Griffin Appeals Ruling in Collection Actions Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Eurich Z. Griffin filed an appeal from a court decision
in the lawsuit styled Eurich Griffin, et al. v. USA, et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-00762-CRC, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class
action lawsuit is brought against various U.S. governmental
institutions alleging violation of civil rights, seeking money
damages and relief from pecuniary prosecution of ultra vires
collection actions of the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs
of their unalienable rights to security of their privacy, private
property, common law and natural law freedom secured by the U.S.
Constitution for American Citizens as a human being. The Defendants
did not follow the requisite statutory guidelines that would
produce the necessary documentation to confer jurisdiction upon the
Tax Court for issues of a tax liability or other tax law violation
which the Plaintiffs would be liable for.
The appellate case is captioned as Eurich Griffin, et al. v. USA,
et al., Case No. 19-5323, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant Eurich Z. Griffin, of Bridgeport, Connecticut,
appears pro se.
The Plaintiffs-Appellees, including Juanito Estrada, Among Others
Similarly Situated; On behalf of themselves and others so situated
as putative class members; Unincorporated National Persons Standing
in Propria Persona Sui Juris, also appear pro se.[BN]
Defendant-Appellee United States of America, As a Corporate Person
per 28 U.S.C. 3002, is represented by:
DOJ Appellate Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: 202-514-2000
UNITED STATES: Immigrants Sue Over Delayed Citizenship Ceremonies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Camila DeChalus, writing for RollCall.com, reports that immigrants
have sued government over delayed citizenship ceremonies.
Two immigrants whose U.S. citizenship ceremony was delayed by the
coronavirus pandemic have sued the federal government, hoping to
expedite the naturalization process they need to complete to vote
in this fall's presidential election.
The class-action lawsuit was filed this week on behalf of two
permanent residents whose naturalization applications were approved
by the Philadelphia field office of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. But their oath ceremonies, along with
thousands of others, were postponed after the USCIS shut down its
offices in mid-March to help mitigate the spread of the
coronavirus.
Attorneys in their lawsuit wrote that it would take several months,
at best, before the Philadelphia field office could administer the
oath of U.S. allegiance. "Meanwhile, Plaintiffs and putative class
members would continue to be denied the rights and privileges
conferred by U.S. citizenship," they said.
The plaintiffs have asked that their naturalization process be
expedited so they can be sworn in as Americans by late September,
ensuring they can register in time to vote in the fall.
"There has been so much negative fallout from the pandemic,
including delaying the rights of citizenship to hundreds of lawful
permanent residents in the Philadelphia area, every one of whom has
already had their application approved, but now have been unable to
complete the oath — the last step of the citizenship process,"
said Matt Adams, legal director for Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project, which filed the lawsuit along with the National
Immigration Litigation Alliance and others.
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the USCIS, did
not immediately respond to a request Friday for comment on the
lawsuit.
The naturalization oath ceremony is the final legally required step
before someone transitions from permanent resident to American
citizen. The USCIS resumed conducting naturalization ceremonies on
June 4, and the agency said it has naturalized nearly 2,000
individuals to date.
But that falls short of the 60,000 people the agency naturalized
every month before the pandemic, according to government data.
For weeks, the USCIS has dismissed the idea of holding virtual
naturalization ceremonies despite pleas from advocacy groups and
congressional lawmakers.
"Naturalization ceremonies are required to be public, and under the
Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the applicant must
‘appear in person' to take the Oath of Allegiance," USCIS
spokesman Joe Sowers said.
However, some field offices, including the one in Santa Ana,
California, will soon conduct drive-thru ceremonies for thousands
of people there.
The National Partnership of New Americans, a coalition of state,
federal and local organizations that help naturalized citizens
register to vote, estimated that 860,000 people were scheduled to
become U.S. citizens this year. But that was prior to
pandemic-related shutdowns. [GN]
UNITED STATES: McCutchen Appeals CFC Ruling to Federal Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Roy Lynn McCutchen and Paducah Shooter's Supply, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled
McCutchen v. US, Case No. 1:18-cv-01965-EDK, in the United States
Court of Federal Claims.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the United
States Court of Federal Claims issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.
The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all United States persons, who have purchased a
bump-fire stock or bump-fire type device, for personal or
commercial use. They allege that the ATF rule has effected a taking
of their property for which just compensation is required under the
Fifth Amendment.
On the evening of October 1, 2017, a lone gunman stationed himself
in a high-rise, Las Vegas hotel room and fired 1100 rounds of
ammunition downward onto a crowd attending a country music concert.
Fifty-eight people were killed. Over eight hundred more were
wounded by gunshots or as a result of the ensuing panic. When the
authorities entered the shooter's hotel room, they found twelve
semi-automatic weapons equipped with bump stocks devices that allow
a semi-automatic weapon to fire continuous rounds at a rate similar
to that of a machinegun.
The appellate case is captioned as McCutchen v. US, Case No.
20-1188, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ROY LYNN MCCUTCHEN and PADUCAH SHOOTER'S
SUPPLY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Ethan Albert Flint, Esq.
FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC
222 E Park Street, Suite 500
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 288-4777
Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:
Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PO Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 616-2004
US CORRECTIONS: White Appeals W.D. Texas Order to Fifth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dana White filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Dana White v. U.S. Corrections, L.L.C., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-CV-390, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an employment-related class action lawsuit filed against U.S.
Corrections, LLC, US Corrections, LLC and South East Employee
Leasing, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).
The complaint notes that the Defendants have violated the FLSA by
employing the Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refusing to
compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a
rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which
they are or were employed.
The appellate case is captioned as Dana White v. U.S. Corrections,
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 19-51074, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DANA WHITE, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Melissa Ann Moore, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
440 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002-1646
Telephone: 713-222-6775
Defendant-Appellee US CORRECTIONS, L.L.C., is represented by:
Mary E. Buckley, Esq.
CROSS, GUNTER, WITHERSPOON & GALCHUS
500 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
Telephone: 501-371-9999
E-mail: mbuckley@cgwg.com
Defendant-Appellee SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:
Leslie A. Benitez, Esq.
GORDON & REES, L.L.P.
816 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: 512-391-0197
E-mail: lbenitez@grsm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Gumienny, Esq.
GORDON & REES, L.L.P.
1900 West Loop, S.
TransWestern Tower
Houston, TX 77027-0000
Telephone: 713-961-3366
E-mail: hgumienny@grsm.com
USC: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Unreturned Student Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
City News Service/NBC Los Angeles reports that a lawsuit filed June
11, 2020, in Los Angeles federal court alleges that University of
Southern California (USC) is profiting from the coronavirus
pandemic by refusing to refund unused portions of students' spring
fees.
The complaint -- among about a half-dozen similar suits -- alleges
breach of contract for USC's stated refusal to reimburse pro-rated
portions of students' payments after the university was forced to
close its campus due to the public health crisis.
The university issued a statement saying it was "disappointed by
the lawsuit, but believe the evidence will show that USC took
extraordinary steps to ensure continuity of the educational
experience for its students."
The complaint names Los Angeles undergraduate student Justin
Kerendian as lead [plaintiff] and asks for class-action status on
behalf of all USC students who paid spring fees. Kerendian says he
paid about $30,000 for spring semester tuition and fees and has not
attended any in-person classes since March 10.
The suit alleges that USC's refusal to refund fees is unlawful and
unfair, and accuses the university of engaging in "fraudulent
business practices that are harmful and injurious" to students.
The university has been "unjustly enriched by retaining the tuition
and fees without providing the same high-quality education and
experience that plaintiff and the class members" were promised, the
lawsuit alleges.
In late April, USC Provost Charles F. Zukoski said the school will
not give partial tuition refunds for the spring semester or
upcoming summer sessions even though the campus shifted to online
instruction.
"While this is not the semester any of us envisioned, we are
continuing to provide a high-quality education, ensure academic
progress towards degree, and offer a robust learning environment,"
Zukoski said in an email to the campus community. "Whether our
instructors present their classes in person or online, they bring
the same expertise, depth of knowledge and commitment to their
teaching, and students continue to earn credits toward a USC
degree."
Zukoski's message came a day after students demanded refunds for
campus fees in proposed class-action lawsuits against the
University of California and California State University systems.
Those lawsuits argue that the two public university systems should
return millions of dollars to the 700,000 students they
collectively serve because they can no longer fully access health
care, campus centers and other services funded by their mandatory
fees. [GN]
UTAH: Business Hurt by Shutdown to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Spencer Joseph, writing for Fox13Now (Salt Lake City), reports that
multiple businesses in the state have joined together with lawyers
to soon file a lawsuit against leaders who placed COVID-19
restrictions on Utah companies.
Among those named are Governor Gary Herbert and Lt. Governor
Spencer Cox.
"Utah attorneys are filing a class-action lawsuit against Utah
Governor Gary Herbert and Lt. Governor Spencer Cox on behalf of
Utah businesses devastated by their decisions to shut down many of
the state's small businesses, especially in Salt Lake and Summit
Counties, in alleged violation of plaintiffs' state and federal
Constitutional rights," the press release sent out on Friday read.
"Utah's infection and death rate were among the lowest in the
nation, Herbert and Cox chose to extend draconian restrictions that
have devastated tens of thousands of Utah businesses, and cost the
state 10 percent of its jobs so far."
One of the companies involved is Epic Party Events owned by Kerby
Barker.
"We wouldn't have minded if we lost customers because they felt
like they didn't want to do it. Once the restriction of 10 or
smaller hit, we lost everyone," Barker told FOX 13. "The
restrictions each time were literally the thing that cut our
business . . . and we went from doing well too zero overnight."
Barker's company has several different mobile event services from
game trailers to mobile laser tag, archery tag, photo booths and
more.
Barker doesn't want this to be about money, but instead he told us
it's about starting the conversation over what happened to
businesses because of Utah's restrictions.
He has even received negative reviews online because of the
lawsuit.
"[Companies] get bad reviews, like literally what's happening to me
. . . And so I'm willing to take it because I know that more people
need to understand what happened to these small businesses," Barker
said.
Barker struggled through the last few months, maxing out his credit
cards to keep the company afloat and through it all having his
third child during the pandemic.
"We did get a PPP advance which was not nearly enough to keep us
afloat," Barker said. "They declined our loan because of our credit
score, and our credit score went down because they maxed out our
credit cards because we couldn't be in business."
Governor Herbert's office and Lt. Governor Cox's office both have
policies to not comment on ongoing litigation when asked about this
lawsuit.
The case is expected to be filed sometime before the end of the
month. [GN]
VIMEO: Faces Facial Recognition BIPA Class Action in Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan A. Quinn, Esq. -- meghan.quinn@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that biometric tech is everywhere. Think facial
recognition, voice ID, fingerprints, retina scans (a la Minority
Report or a million other sci-fi movies, except real and in the
present). It's probably how you unlock your phone every day, and
how social media platforms ask if that photo some friend of a
friend tagged is really you. And it's likely to become even more
pervasive in light of COVID-19 as some companies seek to embrace
longer-term remote work policies without sacrificing security.
Because of an Illinois statute -- the Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA) -- this could pose a big, costly problem for companies
if they don't get consent, and that problem could play out in the
form of a big class action in federal court. Take Vimeo, for
example: a federal judge just rejected their attempt to arbitrate a
class action brought under BIPA, even though the user had agreed to
an arbitration clause. Luckily, though, this was because an
exception applied, but the court reiterated the broad privacy
rights afforded by BIPA and demonstrated a willingness to disfavor
arbitration if the circumstances are right (or wrong, depending on
your view).
If you're reading this, you probably know that BIPA is a sweeping
state law that restricts how companies can collect, store, use, and
destroy this information. Most notably, it creates a private right
of action that has the potential to cost companies millions or even
billions -- $1,000 per negligent violation or $5,000 per reckless
violation (or actual damages if they're more than that), plus
attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
Companies have faced hundreds of BIPA lawsuits since the Illinois
Supreme Court opened the floodgates early last year by holding that
individuals could sue based on a statutory violation alone, even if
the violation didn't harm them in any way. Two federal courts of
appeals -- the Ninth and, as we reported last month, the Seventh
Circuit -- subsequently held the same thing under the federal
standard. (Though before all this, the Second Circuit seemed to
hold otherwise, albeit in a non-precedential decision, and the
deepened split might get the Supreme Court to take up this issue.)
It's not all bad news. Companies facing BIPA lawsuits have several
lines of attack, including on grounds of personal jurisdiction,
statute of limitations, constitutionality of the statute itself,
preemption by other state/federal laws, as well as various
statutory defenses, etc. And, some companies have able to avoid
class actions by invoking arbitration clauses. Just last month, for
example, an Illinois federal court set aside claims that Southwest
Airline violated the BIPA by requiring employees to clock in and
out by scanning their fingerprints, holding that employees had to
pursue their claims as individuals in arbitration, not as a class
in federal court. (See this post for more details on that.)
Earlier, though, a judge in the same federal court ruled in Acaley
v. Vimeo, Inc., No. 19-cv-7164, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95208 (June
1, 2020) that users of a video app could pursue their claims in
federal court. This case involves the Magisto video creation and
editing app, which Vimeo owns and operates. A guy named Bradley
Acaley, a user of the Magisto app, brought a class action alleging
that Vimeo violated BIPA by using facial recognition technology to
scan pictures and videos uploaded to the app to create unique face
templates without consent.
Vimeo asked the court to stay the lawsuit and compel Acaley to
arbitrate his claims individually, claiming that Acaley had agreed
to arbitrate BIPA claims by accepting Magisto's terms of service,
which contain a mandatory arbitration clause. The court ruled
against Vimeo, holding that even though the there was a binding and
valid arbitration clause in the terms of service, that clause did
not apply under an exception for claims relating to "invasion of
privacy."
The court first addressed whether the agreement to arbitrate was
valid. It was, the court held, because Magisto provided "reasonable
notice" that use of the app meant a user agreed to the terms of
service. Whether a company has provided "reasonable notice" is a
fact-specific test under Illinois law. On some of its signup pages,
Magisto included a statement that use is subject to terms, along
with a hyperlink to those terms. That was enough for the court.
The court agreed with Acaley, though, that the arbitration clause
did not cover BIPA claims based on an "invasion of privacy"
exception in the terms of service. The exception stated that any
claims "related to, or arising from . . . invasion of privacy" were
not covered by the arbitration clause. That included BIPA claims,
according to the court, since BIPA created "a legal right to
privacy."
Courts generally favor arbitration, and where there is a valid
arbitration clause, they usually require parties to arbitrate
unless they can say "with positive assurance" that the agreement
cannot reasonably be interpreted to over the dispute. Vimeo argued
that that the clause could be interpreted to cover only claims
brought by Vimeo against users and not the other way around, and
that it applied only to claims of common-law invasion of privacy,
not a statutory claim involving privacy. The court rejected these
more narrow interpretations, and was absolutely sure that "any
Claim related to, or arising from, allegations of . . . invasion of
privacy" covered BIPA claims.
So, the court let this class action continue in federal court.
Enforcement of arbitration clauses can be fact-specific, though, so
it seems unlikely that this will become a trend since it was
dependent on a specific exception in the terms of service, and this
judge arguably seemed less inclined to enforce the arbitration
agreement than is typical. For example, as we reported here, a
different judge in the same court compelled arbitration in a
similar BIPA class action against Shutterfly. The court in that
case enforced an arbitration clause, even though it didn't exist
when the plaintiff signed up, since the original terms had a change
in terms provision, and the plaintiff continued to use the site
after Shutterfly added the clause. That plaintiff will have to
bring her claims as an individual in arbitration against
Shutterfly.
On the other hand, the Vimeo case will continue as a class action
in federal court due to the court's interpretation of that
"invasion of privacy" exception. The different outcomes illustrate
just how important it is for companies to carefully craft (and
update) their terms of service based on evolving case law. And take
an extra careful look at any arbitration exceptions in your
contracts. [GN]
VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Kirschmann Civil Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rhonda Kirschmann filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Rhonda Kirschmann, L.D.K., minor brought by next
friend and parent, Rhonda Kirschmann and all those similarly
situated v. State Of Virginia, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-00600-MSD-DEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Norfolk.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of
suit is stated as Other Civil Rights, and the lawsuit was filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Rhonda Kirschmann v. State of
Virginia, et al., Case No. 19-2335, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Plaintiff, of Chesapeake, Virginia, appear pro se.[BN]
WELLS FARGO: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 15 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells
Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC) securities between April 5,
2020 and May 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wells Fargo
investors have until August 3, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
On April 19, 2020, after at least one lawsuit was filed against the
Company, reports surfaced that Wells Fargo may have unfairly
distributed government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection
Program ("PPP").
On this news the Company's share price fell $1.54, or over 5%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.84 per share on
April 21, 2020, thereby injuring investors.
Finally, on May 5, 2020, the Company revealed that "it has . . .
received formal and informal inquiries from federal and state
governmental agencies regarding its offering of PPP loans."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.74, or over 6%,
over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.61 per share
on May 6, 2020, thereby injuring investors further.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that 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; (2) that 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 (3) 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,
you may move the Court no later than August 3, 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 Wells Fargo 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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.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:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 3, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Company
(NYSE: WFC), if they purchased the Company's shares between April
5, 2020, and May 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of Wells Fargo 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/cases/nyse-wfc/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by August 3, 2020.
About the Lawsuit
Wells Fargo and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On April 5, 2020, the Company proclaimed that it had received
significant interest in a program under the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act, the Paycheck Protection Program
("PPP"), and intended to distribute a total of $10 billion to small
business customers through it. Then, on May 5, 2020, the Company
disclosed that it had been sued in multiple lawsuits relating to
its involvement with the PPP and had also "received formal and
informal inquiries from federal and state governmental agencies
regarding its offering of PPP loans."
On this news, the price of Wells Fargo's shares plummeted.
The case is Ma v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al, No. 20-cv-03697.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients - including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking
recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or
malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New
York, California and Louisiana.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
Tel: 1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/
[GN]
WELLS FARGO: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress
for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class
action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of its client
and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of Wells Fargo & Co. ("Wells Fargo" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: WFC) from February 2, 2018 through March 10,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action alleges
violations of the federal securities laws against Wells Fargo and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.
Headquartered in San Francisco, California, Wells Fargo provides a
range of financial products and services, including banking,
consumer finance, credit cards, investments, leasing and mortgages.
The Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo made false and misleading
statements to the public throughout the Class Period in connection
with its compliance with Consent Orders issued by the Federal
Reserve, the Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency and other government agencies.
On March 4, 2020, a 113-page-report revealed the truth about Wells
Fargo's compliance with the Consent Orders. The report stated that
the Company had submitted insufficiently developed and inadequate
remediation plans, struggled to meet deadlines, and failed to
implement meaningful reforms. The government agencies overseeing
the reform threatened supervisory and/or enforcement actions and
additional penalties. Wells Fargo's stock declined from $41.40 to
close at $37.09 on Friday, March 6, 2020, a decline of $4.31 or
just over 10% over two trading days.
On March 10, 2020, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee
requested that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate Wells
Fargo's former CEO for providing false statements directly related
to the Company's compliance while giving public testimony in 2019.
On this news, Wells Fargo's shares fell from $34.63 per share to
$27.20, a decline of $7.43 or more than 20% over two trading days.
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than August 10, 2020. Any member
of the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice.
If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Wells Fargo's
common stock from February 2, 2018 through March 10, 2020, you may
obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability
to become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Christian Levis at
clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at
afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. The class action is
titled Perry v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al, No. 1:20 cv 04494
(S.D.N.Y.). [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Rosen Law Announces Filing of Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) between April 5,
2020 and May 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Wells Fargo investors under the
federal securities laws.
On April 19, 2020, it was reported that Wells Fargo may have
unfairly allocated government-backed loans under the Paycheck
Protection Program ("PPP"). On this news, Wells Fargo stock price
fell $1.54 per share over the next two trading days, or over 5%, to
close at $26.84 per share on April 21, 2020.
On May 5, 2020, in an SEC filing, Wells Fargo disclosed that it had
"received formal and informal inquiries from federal and state
governmental agencies regarding its offering of PPP loans." On this
news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell $1.74 per share over the next
two trading days, or over 6%, to close at $25.61 per share on May
6, 2020.
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: (1) 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; (2) 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 (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 3,
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-1861.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bryant Suit Moved From California to Nebraska
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Daniel Bryant, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., a Nebraska
Corporation; Drivers Management, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; Does
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00994, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, San
Bernardino County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska on June 15, 2020.
The District of Nebraska Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-00227-BCB-CRZ to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Werner Enterprises, Inc., was founded in 1956 and is a
transportation and logistics company, with coverage throughout
North America, Asia, Europe, South America, Africa and
Australia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
Michael J S Calvo, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
The Defendants are represented by:
Peter B Maretz, Esq.
STOKE WAGNER ALC
600 West Broadway, Suite 910
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 232-4261
Fax: (619) 232-4840
Email: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com
WESTGATE RESORTS: Court Narrows Document Production in Moore Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARILYN MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
WESTGATE RESORTS, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-CV-410-DCLC-HBG, (E.D. Tenn.), the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee (i) granted in part and denied in
part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Discovery; and (ii)
denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Order Regarding Discovery of
Electronically Stored Information.
Plaintiffs initially filed the Complaint in September 2018.
Plaintiffs bring suit against Defendants Westgate Resorts, Ltd.,
Westgate Marketing, LLC, and CFI Resorts Management, Inc.
(collectively referred to as the "Resort Defendants"), as well as
Defendants Central Florida Investments, Inc., Westgate Vacation
Villas, LLC, and Westgate Resorts, Inc. (collectively referred to
as the "Non-Resort Defendants").
A Second Amended Complaint was later filed, alleging that a number
of individuals purchased floating use plan timeshare properties at
the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort ("Resort") through the date of
certification and were similarly injured by Defendants' omissions.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants oversold timeshares and omitted
material facts to induce the Proposed Class to purchase or upgrade
units, pressured prospective buyers via their marketing strategies,
omitted material facts and disclosures, including those required by
the Tennessee Timeshare Act to induce buying units or upgrades, and
failed to disclose material information regarding Plaintiffs'
rights - including the right of rescission.
Plaintiffs are now seeking precertification discovery beyond the
class representatives, and subsequently filed two sets of
Interrogatories and two sets of Requests for Production of
Documents on Defendants.
* Jurisdictional Discovery of Non-Resort Defendants
Plaintiffs maintain that issues of personal jurisdiction are
properly discoverable, and the Non-Resort Defendants have refused
to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests on the grounds that
they are not subject to the Court's personal jurisdiction.
Defendants claim that Plaintiffs failed to plead facts necessary to
establish personal jurisdiction, and seek for the Court to deny
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to the jurisdictional
discovery.
Here, the Court declines to stay discovery pending the resolution
of the Non-Resort Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and will allow
limited jurisdictional discovery of the Non-Resort Defendants.
However, the Court agrees that several of Plaintiffs' discovery
requests are overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the
present case, especially prior to a motion for class certification.
Therefore, the Court will allow limited jurisdictional discovery to
the extent set forth in this opinion to establish the relationship
that the Non-Resort Defendants have with the Resort Defendants and
the forum state.
* Discovery Regarding Relationship Non-Resort Defendants Have
with Resort Defendants and Tennessee
Plaintiffs state that the Non-Resort Defendants improperly objected
that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, while the Resort
Defendants have not produced any documents or discovery related to
the connection between the respective parties.
Resort Defendants maintain that such requests are overly broad and
not proportional with respect to the needs of this case, as, for
example, several of Plaintiffs' discovery requests would require
Defendants to produce essentially all contracts and financial
documents related to the operation of the Resort.
The Non-Resort Defendants similarly claim that they do not have any
offices in Tennessee, and have no financial or business
arrangements related to the Resort or Tennessee, other than through
Defendant Central Florida Investments, Inc., which processes credit
card payments for the Resort.
Here, the Court has reviewed the factors set forth in Rule 26(b),
and finds that several of Plaintiffs' requests are overly broad and
not proportional to the needs of this case, especially prior to a
motion for class certification. Plaintiffs seek discovery
involving all financial and business arrangements of the
Defendants, such as requiring Defendants to compile every financial
arrangement involving a Defendant, the location of all property
owned by the Defendants in the United States, any communication
involving an individual in Tennessee, and the financial structure
of the Defendants.
Plaintiffs fail to explain why such wide-ranging financial
information is necessary, or narrow their requests to the specific
causes of action. Although the Court has allowed limited
jurisdictional discovery, granting Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
under such broad requests would constitute a fishing expedition
into Defendants' financial and accounting practices.
However, Defendants shall provide any documents establishing the
formal business relationship between the respective Defendants,
including any documents identifying the corporate and
organizational relationships between Defendants. Non-Resort
Defendants shall provide any contracts involving the Resort and
Defendant Central Florida Investments, Inc., or any contract
directly involving the Resort and a Non-Resort Defendant. All
Defendants shall provide documentation of their current board
leadership and executive leadership, as well as the
responsibilities of all board committees, task forces, or working
groups. Further, Defendants have stated that they would produce a
contract between Westgate Marketing, LLC and Westgate Resorts, LLC,
as it did not relate to entity formation, which they will be
required to produce if they have not already done so.
Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be denied with respect
to RFP Nos. 19, 22, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, and 36 as well as
Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 9; granted in part and denied in part with
respect to RFP No. 24 and Interrogatory No. 7; and granted with
respect to RFP No. 23.
* Discovery Regarding Booking and Reservation Issues
Plaintiffs also seek discovery regarding how timeshare bookings are
managed, why booking requests are denied, the decision-making
process and strategies associated with booking timeshare units, as
well as discovery related to how Defendants handle reservation
calls and booking requests.
The Resort Defendants respond that they have previously produced
policy level documents reflecting the process of booking and
reserving timeshare units, as well as data reflecting the identity
and purchase details of every timeshare owner during the proposed
eleven-year class period and data depicting the monthly snapshots
showing the number of units available for reservations and the
reservations made by all owners during this period.
Here, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs' discovery requests
involving Defendants' booking and reservation policies are overly
broad and not proportional to the needs of this case. Defendants
have produced monthly snapshots depicting the availability of
timeshare units over a monthly period, as well as the purchase
information of all timeshare owners during the proposed class
period. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' requests would
unduly burden Defendants by requiring them to provide all documents
relating to the over 73,000 timeshare owners during the proposed
class period.
Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be denied as to RFP
No. 3 and Interrogatory No. 3, and will be granted in part and
denied in part with respect to RFP No. 2.
* Discovery Regarding Training for Managers, Closing Officers,
and Sales Representatives
Plaintiffs seek discovery establishing how managers, closing
officers, and sales representatives are trained, including
conducting both in-house sales and tours. Plaintiffs state that
although Defendants produced training manuals, they are requesting
discovery regarding how the training manuals were developed.
Defendants respond that they have produced the training and
employee manuals for sales and closing representatives, and such
relevant policy-level documents are sufficient for precertification
discovery to establish whether a possible basis for class
certification existed based on uniform practices.
Here, the Court notes that Defendants have already produced the
training and employee manuals for sales and closing
representatives. Defendants have also produced the sales and
closing representatives involved with the purchases of the Named
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the
information sought in each request is relevant, satisfies Rule 26's
proportionality requirement, and is necessary to substantial class
allegations. The Court finds that requiring Defendants to further
produce all sales or closing representatives at the Resort,
communications related to the development of these manuals, or
communications involving the training and compensation of sales and
closing representatives would be unduly burdensome and not
proportional to the needs of this case prior to a motion for class
certification.
Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be denied as to RFP
Nos. 5, 14, 20, and Interrogatory No. 2, and will be granted in
part as to RFP No. 13 only to the extent previously set forth in
this Opinion.
* Discovery Related to the Portfolios Handed to Customers
Plaintiffs seek for the Court to compel discovery related to
portfolios handed to customers, which Plaintiffs allege contained a
secret pocket. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants had in place a
policy that required closing agents to place closing and disclosure
documents into the secret pocket in the provided portfolios.
Defendants stated that they have produced supplemental
communications related to the security pocket, including an
additional email thread giving instructions to closing agents
relating to the security pocket. However, Defendants state that
they do not object to providing additional communications relating
to the use of a security pocket or the provided portfolios,
assuming such correspondence exists.
Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be granted in part
with respect to RFP No. 4, and Defendants shall provide an example
of the portfolio utilized in each year of the proposed class
period, if available, as well as any communications regarding the
implementation and removal of the alleged secret pocket.
* Discovery Related to Marketing Strategies and Contracts Between
Owners and Defendants
Plaintiffs seek discovery related to Defendants' marketing
strategies, whether owners were informed of their right of
rescission, sales-strategy communications, and the relationship and
marketing strategies between Resort Defendants and Non-Resort
Defendants.
Defendants respond that they have provided the training manuals for
in-house sales representatives, and proffered that each time a
timeshare owner arrives at the resort, the concierge asks to
schedule an appointment, which is a non-mandatory meeting.
Defendants assert that there is no allegation that Defendants
intentionally booked timeshare owners in improper rooms to
facilitate upgrades, and that they will produce all
reservation-related policy documents.
Here, the Court agrees that the remaining requests are overly broad
and not proportional to the needs of the case at this time. The
Resort Defendants have already agreed to produce the sales and
closing agents involved with the Named Plaintiffs, as well as their
supervisors, their dates of employments and reasons for separation,
and current personnel and training manuals for sales and closing
representatives. The requested discovery related to Defendants'
broad marketing strategies and overall personnel decisions are
overly broad, and Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the
relevant to the present claims at this stage of litigation.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be denied as to RFP
Nos. 18, 20, and 21, as well as Interrogatory No. 4. However,
Defendants will be required to produce the discovery which they
stated they did not object to producing in their responses to
Plaintiffs' discovery.
* Discovery Related to Management of Owner Payments, Escrow
Payments, and Credit Checks on Timeshare Owners
Plaintiffs seek documents establishing how owner payments were
managed, where funds were held or transferred, and how buyer
creditworthiness was assessed. Plaintiffs also seek discovery
related to a potential buyer's creditworthiness or financial means,
which are run prior to or during a customer's tour of the Resort.
Defendants again respond that Plaintiffs' discovery requests are
overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case.
Defendants object to Plaintiffs' discovery requests related to
Defendants' escrow accounts and financial information, as none of
the Named Plaintiffs made any factual allegations relating to any
impropriety regarding escrow accounts. Next, Defendants maintain
that the conclusory statement in the Amended Complaint, without
supporting factual allegations, does not warrant widespread
discovery into Defendants' finances.
Here, the Court again agrees with Defendants that they have
produced the relevant discovery, and the remainder of Plaintiffs'
requests are overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the
case. Plaintiffs request wide-ranging discovery related to
Defendants' finances and accounting practices based upon a single,
broad allegation in the Complaint.
Ultimately, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be denied as to RFP
Nos. 7, 19, 22, and 26, as well as Interrogatory No. 8. However,
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be granted with respect to RFP
No. 23, and granted in part and denied in part with respect to RFP
No. 24, as set forth in Section B.
* Discovery Relating to Compliance with the Tennessee Time-Share
Act
Plaintiffs similarly seek documents establishing how Defendants
ensured compliance with the Tennessee Timeshare Act, specifically
involving the required disclosures to owners and what closing
officers, sales representatives, or managers were trained and
encouraged to say during pitches and stages of the unit purchase.
Defendants assert that the Tennessee Timeshare Act is a
comprehensive statutory scheme with several requirements, and that
they have produced the required declarations as to the Named
Plaintiffs.
Defendants shall be required to produce any registrations and
public offering statements provided to the Named Plaintiffs, but
not all communications or documents related to these subjects
requested in Plaintiffs' discovery. The Court agrees with
Defendants that much of the requested discovery, such as all
documents relating to compliance with the Tennessee Timeshare Act,
is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case.
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the relevance of all
communications related to the delivery of warranty deeds, or all
documents related to any public offering statements provided to
Named Plaintiffs or obtaining signatures.
Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be denied as to RFP
Nos. 6, 8, 9, 17, and 29. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be
granted in part with respect to RFP No. 4 only to the extent set
forth in section D.
* Discovery Regarding Complaints by Buyers or Owners Involving
Unavailability, Concealment of Information, or Attempts to
Rescind
Plaintiffs seek discovery of documents related to complaints by
buyers or owners in the Proposed Class Period involving concealment
of information or omissions or attempts to rescind the purchases,
as well as documents related to complaints by buyers or owners in
the class period involving unavailability of units for booking
overnight stays.
Defendants assert that the discovery requests related to complaints
of concealment of information or misrepresentation, as well as
various other complaints by Owners, seeks precisely the information
that the Sixth Circuit has deemed inappropriate for class
certification that is, information on potential class members that
may have suffered a violation of the same provision of law rather
than the same injury as the Named Plaintiffs.
Ultimately, the Court agrees with Defendants that the requested
discovery categorized in this section constitutes individualized
discovery for every potential class member, and is not appropriate
for precertification discovery. Plaintiffs seek all documents
related to any allegations or complaints of concealment or
misrepresentations, or any complaints by owners relating to
allegations of fraud, omissions, breach of contract,
unavailability, or violations of the Tennessee Timeshare Act. At
this stage of the litigation, such requests are overly broad and
are unduly burdensome.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be granted in part
and denied in part with respect to RFP Nos. 10 and 15.
* Discovery Regarding Promotion/Retraining/Termination Decisions
Lastly, Plaintiffs seek documents and communications detailing how
promotion, retraining, or termination decisions were made, as well
as discovery related to the employment dates and reasons for
separation for sales representatives, closing agents, and managers.
Defendants largely assert that the broad nature of the requested
discovery is irrelevant to the pending claim and disproportional to
the needs of the case, as it would constitute the personnel file of
every individual employed by the Resort Defendants over a ten-year
period.
Here, the Court again agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs'
discovery requests on this subject are overly broad and not
proportional to the needs of this case. Defendants have produced
the training manuals for sales and closing agents, and the relevant
documentation pertaining to the specific sales representatives and
managers involved with the Named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' requested
discovery is not narrow enough to prevent Defendants from being
unduly burdened.
By requesting such broad discovery related to the training and
supervision of sales and closing agents at the Resort, or
identifying all current and past sales and closing agents during
the proposed class period, Plaintiffs seek large amounts of
non-relevant personnel-related documents, as well as discovery
largely focused on the merits of the case rather than the Rule 23
requirements.
Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be denied with respect
to RFP Nos. 5 and 14.
ESI Discovery
Plaintiffs also seek the entry of a proposed order regarding the
discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Plaintiffs claim that an ESI
order is necessary as Defendants utilize online database and
booking software, as well as extensive and frequent communications
with employees, which Plaintiffs allege are discoverable.
Defendants respond that they have already produced documents in
native and .pdf format, with consecutive bates numbering, which
were neatly organized with an index. However, Defendants maintain
that the proposed ESI protocol is unnecessarily burdensome, as the
cost of hosting the hundreds of terabytes of data with a discovery
vendor would amount to $13 per gigabyte per month.
As the parties cannot reach an agreement governing the production
of ESI, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding
custodians and search terms, as well as the overall production of
ESI, in light of the Court's order on Plaintiffs' motion to compel.
The Court notes that the implementation of an agreed ESI order or
protocol would not govern the scope of required production, but
rather the format and method of production of discoverable ESI.
Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Order Regarding
Discovery of ESI is denied, the Court rules.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rsgvhh6 from
Leagle.com.
Marilyn Moore, Ryan Spado, Laura Spado, Ellen Gilliland, Larry
Gilliland, Brian Miller, Gerold Gallegos, Deborah Campbell &
Danyelle Miller, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher E. Coleman
, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery Street,
29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111, John O. Belcher -
jbelcher@fpwlegal.com - Farmer Purcell White & Lassiter, PLLC,
Kartik S. Madiraju , Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 275
Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111, pro hac vice,
Kenneth S. Byrd , Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 275
Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111, Richard T.
Wallace , Richard T. Wallace & Associates, P.C.,
109 parkway sevierville, tn 37862, Wayne A. Ritchie, II -
war@rddjlaw.com - Ritchie, Dillard, Davies & Johnson, P.C. & Mark
P. Chalos , Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery
Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111,
Westgate Resorts Ltd., L.P., also known as Westgate Resorts, LTD.,
Central Florida Investments, Inc, Westgate Resorts, Inc., Westgate
Marketing, LLC, Westgate Vacation Villas, LLC & CFI Resorts
Management, Inc., Defendants, represented by Benjamin E. New ,
Greenspoon Marder, P.A., 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, pro hac vice, Gregory C. Logue -
glogue@wmbac.com - Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter, PLLC,
Jeffrey A. Backman , Greenspoon Marder, P.A., pro hac vice, Richard
Wayne Epstein , Greenspoon Marder, P.A., 200 East Broward
Boulevard, Suite 1800, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, pro hac vice &
Robert L. Vance – bvance@wmbac.com -Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen
& Carpenter, PLLC.
WOODBRIDGE VISTA: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Negligence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Woodbridge Vista is a long-term care home owned by Sienna Senior
Living Inc., located in Woodbridge, Ontario. In recent weeks,
dozens of residents at Woodbridge Vista have died as a result of
contracting COVID-19 and related illnesses and neglect.
One of the representative plaintiffs is Lucia Fracassi. Lucia's
mother, Carmela Colalillo, was a resident at Woodbridge Vista.
Carmela died while residing at Woodbridge Vista on May 25, 2020.
Another representative plaintiff is Carmela Bilotta ("Ms.
Bilotta"), who is represented by her son John Bilotta. Mrs. Bilotta
was a resident at Woodbridge Vista until she was suddenly
transported to hospital with 18 other residents on May 31, 2020
after contracting COVID-19.
During a virtual meeting with families of Woodbridge Vista
residents on June 3, 2019, Sienna's Executive Vice President of
Operations, Joanne Dykeman, made disparaging and mocking comments
about Woodbridge Vista residents and their family members. On June
4, 2020, Ms. Dykeman was dismissed from her employment.
On June 5, 2020, the Ontario government appointed William Osler
Health System as interim manager of Woodbridge Vista, thereby
removing control of the facility from Sienna.
On or about June 7, 2020, the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed
to Woodbridge Vista to assist in the provision of care.
On June 12, 2020, the president and CEO of Sienna, Lois Cormack,
resigned from her position.
"This is the second action Thomson Rogers has advanced on behalf of
residents at a Sienna Senior Living facility. The reported
conditions at Woodbridge Vista and the Altamont Care facilities are
appalling," said Stephen Birman a partner involved in both class
actions. "As a community we trust these facilities to take care of
our loved ones with an expectation that the needs of our most
vulnerable are looked after."
In addition to the class action on behalf of resident survivors and
victims, Thomson Rogers has contacted the offices of the Right
Honourable Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford to insist that tax
payers are not required to pay the significant costs associated
with the Canadian Armed Forces deployment and William Osler Health
System's involvement at the Sienna facilities. "These costs should
be fully reimbursed by Sienna and not shouldered by the tax payers
of Ontario and Canada", said Stephen Birman.
Lucia, Carmela, John and their families, as well as other families
of the victims and survivors of Woodbridge Vista, seek compensation
for their tragic losses. In addition, they support the proposed
independent commission into Ontario's long-term care system, which
they hope will result in meaningful change to ensure that a tragedy
like this is never repeated in Ontario's vulnerable long-term care
population.
For further information regarding this claim, please contact
Stephen Birman at Thomson, Rogers at sbirman@thomsonrogers.com or
Lucy Jackson at ljackson@thomsonrogers.com. [GN]
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 75 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR at March 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that as of March 29, there were approximately
25 unresolved pending U.S. lawsuits and approximately 50 unresolved
pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging claims related to the company's
PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular neck product.
The company had received claims for personal injury against it
associated with fractures of the PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular neck
product (PROFEMUR(R) Claims).
As of March 29, 2020, there were approximately 25 unresolved
pending U.S. lawsuits and approximately 50 unresolved pending
non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims (44 of which are part of a
single consolidated class action lawsuit in Canada).
The overall fracture rate for the product is low and the fractures
appear, at least in part, to relate to patient demographics. In
2009, we began offering a cobalt-chrome version of the PROFEMUR(R)
modular neck, which has greater strength characteristics than the
alternative titanium version. However, during the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2011, as a result of an increase in the number
and monetary amount of these claims, management estimated our
liability to patients in the United States and Canada who have
previously required a revision following a fracture of a
PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular neck, or who may require a revision in
the future.
As of March 29, 2020, the company's accrual for PROFEMUR(R) Claims
totaled $11.9 million, of which $7.7 million is included in the
company's condensed consolidated balance sheet within "Accrued
expenses and other current liabilities" and $4.2 million is
included within "Other liabilities."
As of December 29, 2019, the company's accrual for PROFEMUR(R)
Claims totaled $12.1 million, of which $8.8 million is included in
its consolidated balance sheet within "Accrued expenses and other
current liabilities" and $3.3 million is included within "Other
liabilities."
Wright Medical said, "We expect to pay the majority of these claims
within the next two years. Any claims associated with this product
outside of the United States and Canada, or for any other products,
will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual
methodology on a case-by-case basis."
Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Curtis Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Curtis v. Wright Medical Group
N.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00509.
On November 4, 2019, the company entered into a definitive
agreement with Stryker and its subsidiary, Stryker B.V. Under the
terms of the purchase agreement, and upon the terms and subject to
the conditions thereof, Stryker B.V. has commenced a tender offer
to purchase all of the outstanding ordinary shares of Wright for
$30.75 per share, without interest and less applicable withholding
taxes, in cash (the Offer). The Offer is currently scheduled to
expire at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on June 30, 2020, but may be
extended in accordance with the terms of the purchase agreement
between Stryker and Wright.
On April 15, 2020, Marcy Curtis, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company,
members of its board of directors, Stryker B.V., and Stryker
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.
That suit is captioned Curtis v. Wright Medical Group N.V., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00509 (the Curtis Action).
The complaint filed in the Curtis Action alleges that the company
and the members of its board of directors violated federal
securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material
information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which
the plaintiff in the Curtis Action alleges rendered the Schedule
14D-9 false and misleading.
In addition, the plaintiff in the Curtis Action alleges that
members of the company's board of directors and Stryker acted as
controlling persons of the company within the meaning of and in
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to influence and
control the dissemination of the allegedly defective Schedule
14D-9.
The plaintiff in the Curtis Action seeks, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; an order
directing the company's board of directors to file a Schedule 14D-9
that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and
that states all material facts required or necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading; a declaration that the
defendants violated certain federal securities laws and
regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.
Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Thompson Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Thompson v. Wright Medical
Group N.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00061.
On November 4, 2019, the company entered into a definitive
agreement with Stryker and its subsidiary, Stryker B.V. Under the
terms of the purchase agreement, and upon the terms and subject to
the conditions thereof, Stryker B.V. has commenced a tender offer
to purchase all of the outstanding ordinary shares of Wright for
$30.75 per share, without interest and less applicable withholding
taxes, in cash (the Offer). The Offer is currently scheduled to
expire at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on June 30, 2020, but may be
extended in accordance with the terms of the purchase agreement
between Stryker and Wright.
On January 15, 2020, John Thompson, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company,
members of its board of directors, Stryker B.V., and Stryker
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware. The lawsuit is captioned Thompson v. Wright Medical Group
N.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00061 (the Thompson Action).
The complaint filed in the Thompson Action alleges that the company
and the members of its board of directors violated federal
securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material
information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which
the plaintiff in the Thompson Action alleges rendered the Schedule
14D-9 false and misleading.
In addition, the plaintiff in the Thompson Action alleges that
members of the company's board of directors and Stryker acted as
controlling persons of the company within the meaning of and in
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to influence and
control the dissemination of the allegedly defective Schedule
14D-9.
The plaintiff in the Thompson Action seeks, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; an order
directing the company's board of directors to file a Schedule 14D-9
that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and
that states all material facts required or necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading; a declaration that the
defendants violated certain federal securities laws and
regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.
Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
WWE: Faces Investor Class Action Over Saudi Arabia Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------
Connor Casey, writing for Comicbook, reports that a class action
lawsuit between the Firefighters Pension System of the City of
Kansas City Missouri and the WWE has shed some light on the
mysterious situation following the Crown Jewel 2019 event. For
those who don't recall the vast majority of WWE's roster was stuck
in Saudi Arabia for nearly a full day following the WWE Network
event. WWE claimed the delays were caused by technical
malfunctions, directly contradicting reports from Wrestling
Observer's Dave Meltzer stating Saudi Arabia officials were
preventing the wrestlers from leaving due to a financial dispute
with WWE. The lawsuit, according to Meltzer, was filed by investors
claiming WWE has allegedly misrepresented the situation between WWE
and Saudi Arabia.
The lawsuit includes two witnesses, both of whom had their names
kept anonymous -- an former WWE wrestler (who was released back in
April) and Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC) employee.
Meltzer read a document from one of the lawsuits during a recent
podcast, in which the wrestler confirmed the vast majority of what
he originally reported (h/t Dominic DeAngelo of WrestleZone for
transcript).
"The individual explained that following Crown Jewel on October 31,
2019, he along with other WWE personnel were scheduled to leave
that King Fahd International Stadium in Riyadh where the event was
held and head to a private airport to take a charter plane to
Buffalo for SmackDown," Meltzer read. "He was told that the charter
flight he was scheduled to leave on was delayed because the plane
needed to be pulled around. After they boarded they were removed
from the airplane. After 20 to 30 minutes, he explained he spoke
with a stewardess on the flight about the delay who told him 'It
seems someone doesn't want us to leave this country.' He further
explained the pilot seemed very distressed when he informed the
passengers that the flight was unable to take off. He recalled that
they were told because of a malfunction issue but he recalled
seeing a ton of guards wearing black militia attire and wearing
guns that were blocking their exit and staring at the wrestlers.
"He became aware that something was wrong and explained that a
number of other personnel were referring to the event as a hostage
situation. He explained he asked Senior Director of Talent
Relations, Mark Carrano about what was going on and Carrano told
him 'That Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Vince McMahon had
gotten into an argument over late payments in conjunction with the
June 7, 2019 Super ShowDown event. Carrano informed the person that
McMahon cut the live feed for the Crown Jewel event and this made
the Crown Prince very mad."
The wrestler then explained why more employees did not come forward
after the story broke.
"The wrestler stated that after he returned WWE put out a letter
that attempted to remove all blame from the company and that in his
opinion, many wrestlers were scared of speaking out due to limited
job opportunities in the industry and WWE's comparatively high
salaries," the document read. "He said that many spoke on the
condition of anonymity to journalists and the WWE denounced these
stories as conspiracies and laughable. Nevertheless, after the
events he said that he and a co-worker went straight to talent
relations and said that they would not go back to Saudi Arabia. He
said that other wrestlers tried to do the same, but the WWE abused
their power and threatened the future trajectory of their careers
if they did not go." [GN]
WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Ferris Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the securities class action suit initiated by John V. Ferris and
Joann M. Ferris is still pending.
On February 20, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers of the
Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M.
Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018.
The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of
federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as
well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the
plaintiffs.
The defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which are currently
pending before the court.
The defendants in these actions will vigorously defend against the
claims pleaded against them.
Wynn Resorts said, "These actions are in preliminary stages and
management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is
currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of
these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Wynn Resorts Limited, owns and operates destination casino resorts.
The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
YELP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission 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 Northern District of
California.
In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers.
The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018,
alleges violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and its
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and operations on February 9,
2017.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On August 2, 2018, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in
part and denied in part on November 27, 2018.
On October 22, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation to certify a
class in this action. The case remains pending.
Yelp said, "Due to the preliminary nature of this lawsuit, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the probability of
incurring a loss or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from
the lawsuit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
[*] Australia's Top Business Group Fights Securities Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Niesche, writing for Law.com, reports that one of
Australia's top business groups has called for regulators to pursue
companies and directors for breaches of continuous disclosure laws
rather than allowing securities class actions.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors is asking the
government to follow the lead of Hong Kong, where continuous
disclosure laws are not linked to a class action regime. [GN]
[*] City of Lethbridge to Join Opioid Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Avatar Pat Siedlecki, writing for MyGrandePrairieNow, reports that
the City of Lethbridge is joining an opioid class action lawsuit
being lead by the City of Grande Prairie. Lethbridge city council
voted to give its support on June 15.
Councillors passed a resolution stating municipalities across
Canada are contending with the social consequences of the opioid
crisis and the impact and cost to the City of Lethbridge with
opioid addiction has been significant. The class action aims to
recover costs from pharmaceutical companies which manufacture the
highly-addictive drugs.
"This is encouraging and exciting news for Alberta," says
Lethbridge Mayor Chris Spearman. "We are pleased that steps are
being taken to address the financial impact of this crisis on
communities. We are looking forward to learning more in the coming
weeks and months as this lawsuit moves forward, and how Lethbridge
can participate. The City of Lethbridge is fully committed to
continuing efforts in combatting the opioid crisis."
Councillors were told a lawsuit like this could take years to make
it through the courts. They agreed to participate on a contingency
fee basis, which protects it from any costs, and to explore the
possibility of becoming a representative plaintiff in the
litigation. [GN]
[*] Class Suit v. Various Dietary Supplement Brands Pending in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Steinford, writing for WholeFoods, reports that NOW recently
made headlines by providing brand names of CoQ10 and SAM-e
manufacturers that were found to be deficient in meeting label
claims. A number of trade publications reported the story and
iherb.com posted it on its website. Trust Transparency Center (TTC)
has itself conducted tests on products containing coenzyme Q10
(CoQ10), astaxanthin, curcumin, and lutein, and TTC's findings are
similar to the NOW testing results. As part of our ongoing
investigations into Amazon and other online vendors' vetting
practices, TTC has independently tested products, contacted the
companies found to not meet label claims and informed them of our
findings. The responses from the identified companies were
typically one of these four:
1. Fix the product problem
2. Ignore repeated communications
3. Discontinue the product
4. Threaten litigation if we made the information public
TTC tested some of the same brands as NOW, suggesting repeat
offenders and very poor gatekeeping on behalf of the presumed
online "gatekeepers." It is interesting also to note that TTC did
in fact receive a litigation threat from some of these same
companies NOW identified, suggesting intimidation was their
strategy rather than contrition and compliance. In some cases, the
products identified by NOW have been discontinued entirely, a
positive development, but in other cases, the companies named by
NOW have discontinued offering the products on Amazon but are
continuing to provide other products found to be failing assay.
As can be seen from the published lists below, several companies
failed for both CoQ10 and for SAM-e. In some cases, Amazon has
discontinued the offering of the NOW named products, but the brand
name products are still carried on the brand website. There is a
current class action filed late last year in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Civil Action
No.: 1:19-cv-22702-KMW) against several of these companies:
-- Vitamins Because LLC
-- CT Health Solutions LLC
-- We Like Vitamins LLC
-- GMax Central LLC
-- ASquared Brands, LLC
How these companies operate (the ones listed above, and in fact,
all of those found to be deficient by both TTC and NOW) and how
they participate in the online channel (e-tailers and their own
websites) moving forward bears watching. It has certainly been
disappointing to observe a lack of engagement and accountability on
the part of the e-tailing community thus far. Responsible actors in
our community have spoken of the product promise in dietary
supplements, where a product contains efficacious amounts AND has
in the bottle what is claimed on the bottle. We conveniently call
these non-compliant companies "outliers," yet many of these online
brands are becoming quite prolific and larger players. We at TTC
will continue to test and pressure this marketplace. We hope at
some point to find willing partners in the e-tailing community to
help us ensure a better industry.
The current environment, unfortunately, supports inconsistency,
poor gatekeeping, non-existent or erratic barriers to entry and a
marketplace and channel that truly exemplifies the statement
"caveat emptor"--"buyer beware."
We sincerely hope that this will be a developing story in some form
or fashion. For now, it is our collective industry responsibility
to look at the facts presented, the behaviors depicted by both
brands and 'gatekeepers' and deliberately and pointedly ask 'what
is wrong with this picture?'
Note: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the
author(s) and contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect those
of the publisher and editors of WholeFoods Magazine. [GN]
[*] COVID-19 Pandemic Poses Challenges for Businesses
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Milligan and Joshua Salinas, writing for Law.com, report
that the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented disruption and
challenges for businesses navigating California's consumer
protection laws. California was already an attractive forum for
expensive consumer class action lawsuits, where it can be easier to
obtain class certification, conduct onerous discovery and obtain
lucrative class action settlement approval with higher attorneys'
fee awards compared to other jurisdictions. The ongoing pandemic
has created even more costly traps for businesses struggling to
pilot these uncharted waters. [GN]
[*] Frivolous Lawsuits Threaten Post-COVID-19 Economic Recovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Bruggeman, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that while
America slowly reopens in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
public stands in a legal no man's land of liability. Businesses are
understandably worried about a deluge of lawsuits from consumers
who could contract the virus while dining, drinking or simply
browsing wares. Employees are concerned over workplace safety. The
family of an Illinois Walmart worker, for example, who reportedly
told supervisors about symptoms, has filed a wrongful death
lawsuit. And McDonald's employees in Chicago and Hooters employees
in Tampa have filed class-action lawsuits. Consumers, too, have
launched a litany of class-action lawsuits against companies like
Ticketmaster and even private colleges.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insists on building
liability protections into the next round of COVID-19 relief
attempts to curb the possible economic problems posed by such
lawsuits and class-action cases in particular. McConnell's most
recent effort to limit liability, this legislative priority has
been derided by opponents as a "ruse" and "devious" attempt to hand
fat cats "corporate immunity" and rush the rest of Americans back
to work. But protection from class-action lawsuits is precisely
what businesses of all sizes need if they're to safely and
expeditiously reopen.
After all, a new report, authored by law firm Jones Day, confirms
the worst: These suits seldom help anyone but attorneys.
Drawing from 110 class-action cases between 2010 and 2018 in which
federal courts approved settlements, the report's interrelated
findings are damning. In the end, it reads, "only a small fraction
of [class-action lawsuit] members receive any monetary benefit at
all from the settlements." When America's courts do award cash
settlements, lawyers rake in the cash while claimants are left with
no more than a nickel.
To quote the paper directly: "In eight injunctive relief cases,
class counsel received an average amount of $491,717, while class
members received no monetary relief." The courts themselves have
critiqued the sorry state of affairs, noting that this type of
relief is "utterly worthless" and does "not benefit the class in
any meaningful way." Further still, the paper finds eight cases in
which class members received only vouchers, or non-cash relief --
while attorneys received "an average amount of $1,028,909."
In fact, across 44 different settlements, the paper found that an
average of more than 60% of the cash goes to attorneys or non-class
members. Enriching lawyers at the expense of clients – are these
lawsuits or scams?
These findings confirm McConnell's calls for class-action reform.
And this is to say nothing of other serious criticisms of these
lawsuits: raised costs for consumers, disseminated bad science, and
a whole lot of economic damage. These are just a few reasons why
lawmakers might consider keeping these reforms in post-pandemic
society. That's not to say no class-action lawsuits have a
legitimate place in America's legal landscape, but when plaintiffs'
attorneys are paid millions and their clients leave the courtroom
empty handed, it's clear that something is seriously wrong.
Obviously, these frivolous lawsuits pose a serious threat to the
country's post-COVID-19 economic recovery. Larry Kudlow, Trump's
chief economic adviser, worries that wrongheaded lawsuits will
jeopardize the country's recovery, saying "businesses should not
have to deal with any 'trial lawyers putting on false lawsuits.'"
Fortunately, the Insurance Journal reports, that only a few such
lawsuits have been filed so far, partly because of "the difficulty
of proving where someone was infected."
That doesn't mean businesses are out of the woods. If the Jones Day
paper demonstrates anything, it's that lawyers have both the
financial incentive and legal know-how to turn bogus claims into
big-time payouts. And when nothing is standing in their way to do
so, why wouldn't they?
As the battle over the extent of COVID-19 liability restrictions
continues in Congress, lawmakers should consider solutions like
capping settlements, or at least the percentage paid out to
attorneys. Only then will businesses feel secure about the
possibility of opening, in a time when security is the number-one
thing they need. [GN]
[*] ILR Joins Australia's Class Action Litigation Debate
--------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Mills, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
one of Washington's most powerful business lobbyists has entered
Australia's increasingly political fight on class action
litigation, as a key piece of law goes to a vote in the Victorian
Parliament.
The US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) has been registered
under the federal government's foreign influence transparency
scheme after making a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into
class action regulation.
ILR said in its submission its members had a direct interest in the
legislation, because many "carry on business in Australia or trade
with Australians" and are exposed to litigation in what it calls a
plaintiff-friendly country.
Its involvement in the national debate, led by plaintiff lawyers
and business leaders, is unsurprising after global moves by the
institute to stem what it calls "litigation abuse".
The new Victorian laws, coming amid the federal inquiry, were to go
before the state's upper house on June 18. [GN]
[*] Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss COVID-Related Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret A. Dale, Esq. -- mdale@proskauer.com -- and Mark D.
Harris, Esq. -- mharris@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose, in an
article for Law.com, report that as the global economy surges up
and down, companies continue to work to represent accurately to
their investors the current state of affairs. Given the turmoil in
the markets, an increasing number of plaintiffs are bringing
shareholder class action suits, citing corporate statements about
COVID-19. Oftentimes, these lawsuits point to statements from the
company's most recent SEC filings or associated press releases, and
argue that the company knew that those statements were false or
materially misleading based on actions that the company took not
long after its reporting date. As first-quarter earnings season
draws to a close, now is a good time to reflect on the shareholder
class actions that have been brought to date related to COVID-19,
and others potentially yet to come.
This article begins by discussing the most recent putative class
action lawsuits related to COVID-19, and concludes by evaluating
implications for future lawsuits.
Colony Capital, Inc. Litigation. On May 26, the plaintiffs filed a
securities-fraud class action lawsuit against Colony Capital, Inc.,
a global investment firm with a focus on digital real estate, and
several of its officers, in the Central District of California. The
lawsuit alleges, in part, that Colony made statements in its recent
public filings (4Q2019 10-Q, 2019 10-K), and associated earnings
calls and press releases that painted a rosy picture of the
company's health care and hospitality segments and their respective
liquidity positions. For example, the complaint cites the 4Q2019
press release and the 2019 10-K, which both purportedly stated that
"with respect to the health care and hospitality units, the Company
successfully addressed all material near-term debt maturities
allowing the respective business unit leaders to focus on improving
cash flows through operational management and capital
expenditures."
The complaint continues that the "truth" came to light in the
following months, when the company disclosed that its health care
and hospitality portfolio companies had defaulted on more than $3
billion in debt as a "result of the economic fallout from
COVID-19." The complaint alleges that the company's public
statements regarding its health care and hospitality segment were
overly optimistic and materially misleading as they failed to
disclose that the portfolio companies in those segments "carried
unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and health
care-related properties and were thus at a significant risk of
default" due to the prospective impact of COVID-19. The company
disclosed the default in its May 8 press release, after which
Colony's stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 3.81%, to close at
$2.02 per share on May 8.
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. Litigation. On May 26, the plaintiffs
filed a securities-fraud class action lawsuit against Sorrento
Therapeutics, Inc. and several of its officers in the Southern
District of California. Sorrento had been developing COVID-19
antibody products that could potentially be used to "block and
neutralize" the virus in at-risk populations and recently infected
individuals. The complaint focuses on May 15, when the company
issued a press release allegedly stating that the antibody
"demonstrated 100% inhibition" of virus infections, and when the
CEO gave an interview where he characterized the breakthrough as a
"cure." After these statements the company's share price increased
more than 280%.
According to the complaint, two reports were issued the week after
the press release that demonstrated that Sorrento's statements were
materially misleading. On May 20, Hindenburg Research published an
article quoting Sorrento's hospital collaborator, who discounted
Sorrento's claims as "very hyped." Two days later, BioSpace
published an article recounting a May 21 interview with the
company's CEO, where the CEO characterized Sorrento's antibody
product as a "potential cure" that would not be effective for
late-stage patients. The complaint argues that Sorrento's initial
statements were misleading and lacked a reasonable basis in that
they did not disclose 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 the
company's finding did not indicate that the product would "cure"
all COVID-19 patients. After the second article, was published the
company's share price had declined nearly 50% from its high several
days earlier.
Carnival Cruise Lines Litigation. On May 27, the plaintiffs filed a
securities-fraud class action lawsuit against Carnival Corporation
and several of its officers in the Southern District of Florida.
The premise of the complaint is that Carnival made certain
statements in its 2019 10-K and subsequent press releases regarding
the extent of the virus's spread, Carnival's adherence to its own
health and safety protocols, its adherence to port-of-call
regulations, and its role in facilitating the virus's spread that
were materially misleading given the company's course of conduct.
For instance, the complaint identifies as materially misleading
statements by Carnival that the "safety of guests and employees
[and] compliance" was a "top priority," and a statement that the
company had not "had a diagnosed case linked to [its] operation" as
of March 13.
According to the complaint, the falsity of these statements was
revealed in a series of news articles. First, on April 16,
Bloomberg News suggested that Carnival "failed to take timely
action after being apprised of COVID-19 threats to its fleet and
passengers," contrary to its statements that "the health and
safety" of its passengers and crew was a top priority. Next, a May
1 Wall Street Journal article purportedly revealed that a passenger
on the Diamond Princess was being treated for COVID-19 as early as
February. The article also alleged that when another ship's medical
staff was questioned by emergency room personnel, the staff denied
any passengers being sick with COVID-19—despite knowing that
several crewmen were currently being quarantined. The WSJ article
also noted several government agencies that had begun to
investigate Carnival. The complaint contends that Carnival's
previous statements were materially misleading because the company
did not disclose the increase in reported COVID-19 events aboard
the cruise ships, Carnival's failure to adhere to applicable
policies, and the fact that its continued operation was increasing
the spread of COVID-19. The company's stock fell 4.2% after the
Bloomberg article and 12.4% in response to the WSJ article.
These are only the most recent examples of securities-fraud class
action lawsuits involving COVID-19. Already in March and April of
this year, plaintiffs had initiated several similar lawsuits:
-- Norwegian Cruise Lines. On March 12, Norwegian became the
first company to face a COVID-19 securities class action. Somewhat
similar to Carnival, the plaintiffs alleged that Norwegian
continued to operate its business without regard to the risks posed
by COVID-19, including employing sales representatives who provided
false information to encourage customers to not cancel cruises.
-- Inovio Pharmaceuticals. Inovio was also sued on March 12. The
lawsuit is similar to that against Sorrento—it alleges false and
misleading statements made in connection with a COVID-19 vaccine
that Inovio is developing.
-- SCWorx Corp. SCWorx presents a slightly different issue from
those discussed above—revenue projections. On April 29, the
plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that SCWorx falsely
represented that it had received an exceptionally large purchase
order of COVID-19 rapid testing kits, with provisions for
substantial additional weekly orders. A news report cast doubt on
the company's claims, and the stock price fell more than 17%.
It is all but certain that more lawsuits are to come. As companies
continue to navigate the difficult reporting landscape in the
COVID-19 era, and prepare themselves for second-quarter earnings
reports, the cases described above can provide useful guidance.
-- Valuation. While the case against Colony Capital was based in
part on debt default, other plaintiffs may go after companies for
overvaluation on other grounds. The coronavirus pandemic will have
far-reaching economic consequences, many of which are still
unclear, yet companies (such as publicly traded asset managers)
will still be required to value their privately held assets. Given
the uncertainty surrounding those valuations, plaintiffs are likely
combing disclosures looking for vulnerabilities.
-- Prediction and Guidance. Future forecasting is another area
of concern. As SCWorx's experience shows, companies may be
vulnerable to lawsuits based on allegedly inflated economic
predictions. This applies with equal force in the health care and
pharmaceutical context where companies should be careful to have a
reasonable basis for any statements regarding future prospects,
along with the appropriate disclaimers.
-- Additional Expenses. As of now, no class action lawsuits have
been premised on unforeseen expenses due to COVID-19. However,
where companies are spending significant sums of money that would
foreseeably alter the company's previously stated guidance, or
materially altering the company's publicly stated business plan,
these expenses could expose the company to class action litigation
absent the appropriate disclosures and disclaimers.
As these cases highlight, companies must be especially careful in
their public statements during and about the pandemic. Where
appropriate, silence may be the best safeguard.
Margaret A. Dale and Mark D. Harris are partners at Proskauer Rose.
Brian A. Hooven, an associate at the firm, contributed to the
writing of this article. [GN]
[*] Seyfarth Discuss Event-Driven Securities Litigation in COVID-19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in a article for JDSupra titled "Event-Driven
Securities Litigation in the Age of COVID-19",
wrote that the COVID-19 pandemic has already spurred several
private securities class action lawsuits and Securities and
Exchange Commission enforcement actions. Companies that deal with
COVID-19 on a daily basis, as well as companies that have been
significantly disrupted (or, conversely, have been positively
impacted) as a result of the pandemic must be proactive now to
mitigate their risks.
A full-text copy of the article is available at
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/event-driven-securities-litigation-in-71593/
[GN]
*********
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 ***