/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200626.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 26, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 128 Headlines ABBVIE INC: Niaspan Direct Purchasers Antitrust Suit Ongoing ABBVIE INC: Suit by Indirect HUMIRA Purchasers Ongoing ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Pace Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for BHAs ALEGRECARE INC: Coleman Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code ALIERA COMPANIES: Illegally Sells Health Insurance, LeCann Claims ALL EMPIRE: Singh Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA ALPHA & OMEGA: July 1 Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Bid in Gray Suit AMAG PHARMA: Consolidated Zamfirova Lawsuit in New Jersey Underway AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Denies Class Status in Torres Pension Suit AMERICAN RENAL: Reaches $5.8MM Agreement in Principle in "Vandevar" ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Glumetza(R) Direct Buyers Seek Class Status ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Seek to Revive Huang Class Suit AUSTRALIA: Gordon Legal to Pursue "Robodebt" Suit Despite Refunds BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Accord in Securities Suit Wins Court Final OK BARNUM & CELILLO: Faces Thompson Employment Suit in California BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Allison King Files Class Action to Seek Refunds BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition and Fees, King Says BBX CAPITAL: Bid to Dismiss Boyd et al. Class Action Still Pending BBX CAPITAL: Bluegreen, BVU Still Face Landon et al. Class Action BBX CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order in VOI Suit BBX CAPITAL: Settlement of Hernandez & Michael Suit v. BVU Underway BBX CAPITAL: Wijesinha TCPA Class Action vs. BVU Still Stayed BEAUFORT, SC: Faces Munday Civil Rights Suit in South Carolina BEMIS COMPANY: Court Consolidates Dixon and Stein Securities Suits BENEFYTT TECH: $2.8MM Pact Reached in Securities Lawsuit BENEFYTT TECH: Appeal Still Pending on 2 Classes in Moser TCPA Suit BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Florida Suit in Discovery BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Belin et al. Class Suit BIG SKY: Averts Student-Athletes' Concussion Class Action BLOOM ENERGY: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in James Hunt Class Suit BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Reaches Pact to Nix Group Annuity Suit CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Cazer Class Action Voluntarily Dropped CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Gershman Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Palkon Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CASPER SLEEP: Patel Sues Over Stock Trading Below IPO Price CELSION CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in O'Connor Suit CENTURY-NATIONAL: Refuses to Pay Insureds, Unmasked Mgmt. Says CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW: 4th Cir. Upholds $2.6MM Deal in Barchiesi CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Gottlieb Class Suit Pending CITIBANK NA: Fahmia Seeks to Recover Agent Fees COMMONWEALTH BANK: Report Breathes New Life Into Class Action COMMONWEALTH BANK: Slater and Gordon Files Suit Over Junk Insurance CONDUENT INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied CV SCIENCES: Court Narrows Claims in Colette Suit DELOITTE CONSULTING: Alexander Slams Data Breach DONAGHY SALES: Geltz Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under Labor Code ELLATION LLC: Letize Sues Over Shut Down of Digital Drops App ENDOLOGIX INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Nguyen Class Action ERIE INSURANCE: Capriccio Slams Denied Insurance Coverage FCI DANBURY: Russian Pilot to Join Class Action to Get Release FUEGO PICANTE: Wrongfully Withholds Earned Wages, Ortega Alleges FUJI HANA: Ye Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages GEMINI DINER: Hernandez Sues for Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages GROUPON INC: Defending Securities Fraud Class Suit in Illinois GSK CONSUMER: Swetz Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Benefiber Powder HALO BRANDED: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York HYNUM PROFESSIONAL: Rodriguez FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania J.C. CHRISTENSEN: Preliminary Approval of Class Action Sought JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Botts Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund KENTUCKY: Infringes Kentuckians' Right to Vote, Nemes Suit Claims KOTTEMANN LAW: Faces King FDCPA Class Suit in M.D. Louisiana LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Seeks Dismissal of Refund Class Action LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: Gunter Seeks Refund of Tuition & Fees LUNG INSTITUTE: Rivero's Suit on Marketing Tactics Moves Forward MAMMUT SPORTS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation MATCH GROUP: Answer to Amended Crutchfield Complaint Due Aug. 26 MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Kim Suit MDL 2953: Transfer of 12 Hernia Mesh Actions to S.D.N.Y. Sought MEER TRADING: Rafael Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Strike 2nd Amended Complaint Pending MILLIMAN INC: Faces Iwanski Suit in Southern District of New York MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE: Byberry Seeks Coverage of COVID-19 Losses NANTHEALTH INC: Case Management Conference Set for July 31 NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Pettway FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Rivera FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania NEW YORK CONVENTION: Faces Warfield Suit in New York Supreme Ct. ONTARIO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Long Term Care Oversight PECKHAM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Wilson Alleges PERSONNEL STAFFING: Court Finds Inadequate Reps in Pruitt Case PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Newman Seeks to Certify FLSA Class POST HOLDINGS: Still Faces Egg Products Suit by Opt-Out Plaintiffs RELIASTAR LIFE: Faces Iacono Insurance Suit in E.D. New York ROYAL BANK: Foreign Exchange Price Fixing Class Action Certified SDI INTERNATIONAL: Sloben Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: July 22 Fairness Hearing in Blackfish Suit SOUTHERN THERAPY: Refuses to Pay Proper OT Pay, Bailey Suit Says SWAN SURFACES: Barton Slams Capturing/Retaining Biometrics Data TCA LOGISTICS: Castro Sues Over Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay TILE SHOP: Trial in Delaware State Court Suit to Begin July 13 TRANS WORLD: $400,000 Settlement Reached in Spack Suit TRANS WORLD: Suit Over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships Ongoing U.S. XPRESS: Faces Mears Suit in E.D. Tenn. Over Data Breach UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Firm Files Additional Class Suits in Australia UBIQUITI INC: Accord in NY Securities Suit Wins Final Okay VAULTAGE SOLUTION: To Face Class-Action Lawsuit Over '$17M Fraud' VIMEO INC: Illinois Court Rejects Arbitration in Acaley BIPA Suit WALTERS WEDDING: Couple Files Class Action Over Refund WELLESLEY BANCORP: Parshall Suit Voluntarily Dismissed WESTJET AIRLINES: Lupien Suit Seeks Refunds for Canceled Flights Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at March 31 ********* ABBVIE INC: Niaspan Direct Purchasers Antitrust Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ AbbVie 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 purported class action suit entitled, In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460. Lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits consist of four individual plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions: one brought by Niaspan direct purchasers and one brought by Niaspan end-payers. The cases are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the Multi District Litigation (MDL) Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460. In August 2019, the court certified a class of direct purchasers of Niaspan. In October 2016, the Orange County, California District Attorney's Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. In May 2018, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the District Attorney's Office may not bring monetary claims beyond the scope of Orange County, which the District Attorney's Office is appealing. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases; IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois. ABBVIE INC: Suit by Indirect HUMIRA Purchasers Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ AbbVie 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 12 putative class action suits initiated by Indirect HUMIRA purchasers. Between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by indirect HUMIRA purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's HUMIRA patent portfolio violate state and federal antitrust laws. The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases; IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois. ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Pace Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for BHAs --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Pace, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and BOWLING GREEN INN OF PENSACOLA, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, together d/b/a Wellness Resource Center, Case No. 9:20-cv-80971-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2020), is brought under Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and hourly-paid Behavioral Health Associates/Direct Care Workers. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay, as required by the FLSA, according to the complaint. The Defendants were aware they were not compensating the Plaintiff at the applicable FLSA overtime rates of pay for such "off-the-clock" work times within weekly pay periods at all times material. The Defendants' common plan, policy and practice of not compensating the Plaintiff for all compensable overtime hours at the applicable FLSA overtime rates of pay violated the provisions of the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Linda Pace was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly-paid Behavioral Health Associate/Direct Care Worker in Boca Raton, Florida. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., owns and operates behavioral health treatment facilities and programs throughout the United States that specialize in treating children, adolescents, adults and seniors suffering from mental health disorders and/or alcohol and drug addiction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com ALEGRECARE INC: Coleman Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEANEE COLEMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ALEGRECARE INC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG20063958 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., June 8, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violate the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, and meal and rest period premiums. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from April 2017 to February 2018, in the State of California, County of Alameda. Alegrecare offers home health care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 211410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 ALIERA COMPANIES: Illegally Sells Health Insurance, LeCann Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOELLE LeCANN, KRISTIN SELIMO, and TANIA FUNDUK, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., formerly known as ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02429-AT (N.D. Ga., June 5, 2020), arises from the Defendant's sale of illegal health insurance to the Plaintiffs and the Class members. According to the complaint, the Defendant has marketed and sold, and continues to market and sell, illegal health insurance masquerading as legitimate Health Care Sharing Ministry plans that would purportedly provide benefits mirroring traditional health insurance. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has falsely portrayed the plans as HCSM plans--even though the Defendant and the plans plainly do not meet the requirements under federal law and state law for HCSMs--in an illegal scheme devised to avoid otherwise applicable federal and state laws regarding health insurance, including limitations on the percentage of premiums that can be diverted to purposes other than the payment of benefits. Aliera provides a full spectrum of health care options and services to a multitude of industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Walbert, Esq. Jennifer K. Coalson, Esq. PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 75 14th St. NE, 26th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 E-mail: dwalbert@pcwlawfirm.com jcoalson@pcwlawfirm.com - and - Stephen J. Fearon, Jr, Esq. Paul Sweeny, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com paul@sfclasslaw.com ALL EMPIRE: Singh Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjit Singh, and Dharmender Singh, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ALL EMPIRE BUILDING CONTRACTORS INC.; HARJINDER SINGH a/k/a Tony Singh, Case No. 1:20-cv-02736 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law seeking to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and or attorney's fees and cost. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs their lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were not exempt under federal and state laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime. The Defendants also failed to keep full and accurate records of Plaintiffs' hours and wages. The Plaintiffs were employed as Drivers and Construction Workers for the Defendants. All Empire Building Contractors Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 ALPHA & OMEGA: July 1 Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Bid in Gray Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has scheduled a conference for July 1, 2020 to consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putative class action complaint by Darryl Gray against Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On March 19, 2020, Darryl Gray, a stockholder of the Company (the "Plaintiff"), filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Gray Action"), alleging that the Company and its management members made material misstatements or omissions regarding the Company's business and operations, including its export control practices relating to business transactions with Huawei and its affiliate. The Gray Action asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the Defendants"), as well as claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Among other remedies, the actions seek to recover compensatory damages and other damages and attorney's fees and costs. On March 20, 2020, the court issued a summons to the Defendants. On March 25, 2020, the court scheduled a conference for July 1, 2020 to consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Company believes the claims in the Gray Action are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. Given the case is in its early stages and still ongoing, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may occur. AMAG PHARMA: Consolidated Zamfirova Lawsuit in New Jersey Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action lawsuit in New Jersey styled, Zamfirova et al. v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Company states, "On November 1, 2019, we were named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, captioned Barnes v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-05088-RK (W.D. Mo.). Subsequently, other plaintiffs represented by the same law firm filed similar class action lawsuits in other jurisdictions, and the lawsuits have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Zamfirova et al. v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 20-00152-JMV-SCM (April 2, 2020). The plaintiffs in this action, on behalf of themselves and purported state-wide classes of similarly situated consumers in California, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin, assert claims for violation of state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment based on allegations that we and/or our predecessor companies made misrepresentations and omissions regarding the effectiveness of Makena in connection with the sale and marketing of that product from 2011 through the present. Because this case is at the earliest stage, we are currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any." AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company developing products that treat iron deficiency anemia in adult patients. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Denies Class Status in Torres Pension Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Adams, Katherine Kohn, and Mark Lofgren of Groom Law Group, Chartered, wrote in JD Supra that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dealt a major blow to the putative class action Torres v. American Airlines, Inc., finding that the four named plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives for the claims alleging that the actuarial assumptions used by the American Airlines' pension plans were unreasonable. The court denied class status because it found that the claims, if successful, would actually harm some absent class members. The decision is a significant victory for American Airlines and may lay out a helpful roadmap for other employers facing similar claims. The plaintiffs had claimed that monthly payment amounts for pension plan participants whose benefits were paid under joint and survivor annuities or other optional forms of benefits were less than the value of their single life annuity benefit. This allegedly resulted in a violation of ERISA's requirement that all optional forms of benefits be "actuarially equivalent" to the participant's accrued benefit normally paid as a single life annuity. As is typical for most pension plans, actuarial equivalence calculations are made using interest rate and mortality assumptions, as specified in the plan document. The plaintiffs primarily targeted the plans' use of an allegedly outdated mortality table—the weighted UP-1984 table—to convert a single life annuity to other benefit forms. The plaintiffs brought claims under ERISA section 502 for declaratory relief, reformation of the plan and payment of benefits, and fiduciary breach. On August 7, 2019, the District Court denied a motion to dismiss by American Airlines and its fiduciary committee (together, "AA"). On December 2, 2019, the plaintiffs sought class certification. The claims made against AA are very similar to those in the other actuarial equivalence lawsuits currently pending against sponsors and fiduciaries of other large pension plans. Of all the pending lawsuits, this is the first in which a court has opined on the issue of class certification. Plaintiffs Argued Class Certification Requirements Are Met The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a class that includes participants and beneficiaries who receive (a) a joint and survivor annuity ("JSA"), (b) a preretirement survivor benefit ("QPSA"), and (c) benefits for life with a guaranteed payment for a specified number of years, regardless of how long the participant lives (known as a certain-and-life annuity, or "CLA"). Each of the named plaintiffs receives one of these forms of benefits. Plaintiffs argued that they had satisfied the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 23 for representing a class. Generally, those requirements are: (1) the class members must be so numerous that joinder of all members is not practical, (2) there must be factual or legal questions that are common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties must be typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the named plaintiffs must adequately and fairly represent and protect the interests of the class members. Plaintiffs generally argued that each member of the proposed class received less benefits due to the plans' use of unreasonable actuarial assumptions—primarily the UP-1984 mortality table—and therefore, class certification was appropriate under FRCP 23. AA Opposed Class Certification Due to Plaintiffs' Inadequate Representation In its response opposing class certification, AA challenged the ability of the named plaintiffs to adequately and fairly represent the class members—one of the requirements under FRCP 23—due to a conflict of interest among the named plaintiffs and the absent class members they sought to represent. The conflict of interest exists, AA argued, because (1) absent class members who receive "Late Retirement Benefits" under the plans would receive reduced benefits if the plaintiffs were successful on their claims, and (2) there is a varying impact of discount rates on different forms of benefits such that it is impossible for plaintiffs to advocate for use of a single interest rate. 1. Late Retirement Benefits First, AA argued that absent class members who receive Late Retirement Benefits—benefits taken when an employee begins his or her benefit after normal retirement age—would actually be harmed by reformation of the plans to provide for use of a more recent mortality table. This is because calculation of Late Retirement Benefits involves an adjustment of the participant's monthly benefit to account for the expectation that the participant will receive fewer installments of monthly benefits than the participant would have received if he or she retired at normal retirement age. Critically, under the terms of the plans, that adjustment utilizes the same mortality table challenged by the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs' desired mortality table were to be used, participants receiving Late Retirement Benefits would suffer a decrease in benefits, not the benefit increase that would be experienced by plaintiffs and others who retired at or before normal retirement age. The plaintiffs' expert dealt with this issue by using the updated mortality table for conversion of JSAs and other optional forms of benefits, but using the UP-1984 table for conversion of Late Retirement Benefits. The plaintiffs argued that ERISA does not require the use of "reasonable" assumptions for arguably subsidized benefits like Late Retirement Benefits, and the plaintiffs were not challenging the use of the plans' assumptions for this purpose. 2. Discount Rates Second, AA argued that a conflict of interest exists because, under the plaintiffs' theory, the plans' interest rate assumption of 5% would also need to be updated to reflect current discount rates (which are generally lower than the rates used by the plans). The plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that there is a range of appropriate discount rates that may be used, and AA argued that the named plaintiffs cannot advocate for use of one reasonable interest rate over another reasonable interest rate without harming fellow class members. This is because the discount rate has varying impacts on different forms of benefits; for example, a JSA benefit generally decreases with a lower interest rate, while a CLA benefit generally increases. In other words, the use of a lower interest rate arguably would benefit a participant or beneficiary receiving a CLA and harm a participant or beneficiary receiving a JSA. Court Decision The District Court agreed with AA that the plaintiffs cannot adequately represent putative class members. First, the court found a conflict of interest between the named plaintiffs and the absent class members receiving Late Retirement Benefits. This, the court found, renders the plaintiffs unable to adequately represent the class. The court further agreed with AA that, due to that conflict, a class action would not be appropriate because the relief sought by the named plaintiffs would not be appropriate for the class as a whole. Significantly, the court rejected the plaintiffs' suggestion that the court resolve the issue by reforming the plan to apply two different mortality tables to the two different groups of benefits. The court explained that it was not willing to override the plan sponsor's decision to use a single mortality table because to do so would undermine ERISA's principal function of protecting contractually defined benefits. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not explain how the plan could continue to use an outdated mortality table for any purpose if the table were in fact inadequate. Finally, the court agreed that a conflict among the plaintiffs exists with respect to the appropriate interest rate, as the plaintiffs could not advocate for a particular interest rate without compromising the interest of some of the proposed class members. GROOM INSIGHT. Unless the plaintiffs can convince the Fifth Circuit to accept an appeal in the middle of the litigation, the district court's decision is likely a game-changer in the case. The ruling could result in the named plaintiffs settling their individual claims or even abandoning them altogether. The plaintiffs may here, and in similar lawsuits likely will, attempt to define the class more narrowly to exclude any participants or beneficiaries who may be harmed by use of more current mortality tables. This may be difficult, however, where the underlying plan terms use actuarial assumptions more broadly, as the AA plans do, because the Torres court explicitly rejected the idea of reforming the same plan terms for one purpose but not another. This decision will undoubtedly empower other defendants to challenge class certification where the reformation of plan terms regarding actuarial equivalence factors could negatively impact the benefits for some participants. To develop this argument, defendants will want to analyze carefully any differences among class members to determine whether assumptions will have varying impacts on participants or beneficiaries such that a conflict of interest exists. [GN] AMERICAN RENAL: Reaches $5.8MM Agreement in Principle in "Vandevar" ------------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the class action suit entitled, Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-09074-ES-MA, have reached an agreement in principle on March 11, 2020, to resolve the claims asserted in this lawsuit, according to American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The settlement will be subject to court approval. The principal terms agreed upon by the parties contemplate a settlement payment of US$5,775,000, which is expected to be made by the Company's insurer, in exchange for a release of claims. The settlement will resolve the claims currently asserted against all defendants in the action without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them, and defendants continue to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in this action. On March 28, 2019 and April 19, 2019, putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. Both complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form 8-K and certain prior filings. The complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of the individuals or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ARA's securities from August 10, 2016 to March 27, 2019. On July 3, 2019, the complaints were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed for the putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-09074-ES-MA (the "Vandevar Action"). On November 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The amended complaint asserts federal securities laws claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form 8-K and certain prior filings. On January 17, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 24, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On February 26, 2020, the parties participated in mediation. American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. is a national provider of kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end stage renal disease, or ESRD. As of March 31, 2017, the Company owned and operated 217 dialysis clinics treating 14,735 patients in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The Company's operating model is based on shared ownership of its facilities with physicians, known as nephrologists, who specialize in treating kidney-related diseases in the local market served by the clinic. Each clinic is maintained as a separate joint venture, or JV, in which the Company has a controlling interest and its local nephrologist partners have noncontrolling interests. ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Glumetza(R) Direct Buyers Seek Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------------ The motion by the direct purchasers seeking class certification in the antitrust litigation related to the drug Glumetza(R) is pending, according to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Company said, "Antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions have been filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and several other defendants relating to the drug Glumetza(R). The named class representatives in the currently pending actions include Meijer, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City of Providence, and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. These class representatives seek to represent a putative class of direct purchasers of Glumetza. In addition, several retailers, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co., the Albertsons Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., and Hy-Vee, Inc., have filed substantially similar direct antitrust claims based on alleged assignments of claims from direct purchaser wholesalers. On December 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the actions. That motion was heard by the District Court on February 20, 2020. On March 5, 2015 the District Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. However, based on the order on the motion, claims previously filed by a putative class of end payor plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed. "These antitrust cases arise out of a Settlement and License Agreement (the Settlement) that the Company, Santarus, Inc. (Santarus) and Lupin Limited (Lupin) entered into in February 2012 that resolved patent infringement litigation filed by the Company against Lupin regarding Lupin's Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic 500 mg and 1000 mg tablets of Glumetza. The antitrust plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Settlement violated the antitrust laws because it allegedly included a "reverse payment" that caused Lupin to delay its entry in the market with a generic version of Glumetza. The alleged "reverse payment" is an alleged commitment on the part of the settling parties not to launch an authorized generic version of Glumetza for a certain period. The antitrust plaintiffs allege that the Company and its co-defendants, which include Lupin as well as Bausch Health (the alleged successor in interest to Santarus) are liable for damages under the antitrust laws for overcharges that the antitrust plaintiffs allege they paid when they purchased the branded version of Glumetza(R) due to delayed generic entry. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged past harm, attorneys' fees and costs. "The parties are currently conducting discovery, and briefing a motion by the direct purchasers seeking class certification. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters." Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, provides medicines in neurology, orphan, and specialty areas in the United States. The company was formerly known as Depomed Inc. and changed its name to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. in August 2018. Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois. ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Seek to Revive Huang Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the case styled, Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal., have filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit related to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's March 11, 2020 ruling, which granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, according to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive officer and president, its former chief executive officer and president, and its former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the District Court). The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its business, compliance, and operational policies and practices concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages and other relief. In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August 7, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019. The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 17, 2019. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on August 1, 2019. The Company and the individuals filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on August 30, 2019. The District Court held oral argument on December 18, 2019. On March 11, 2020, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Assertio said, "The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to contest it vigorously." Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, provides medicines in neurology, orphan, and specialty areas in the United States. The company was formerly known as Depomed Inc. and changed its name to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. in August 2018. Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois. AUSTRALIA: Gordon Legal to Pursue "Robodebt" Suit Despite Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7news.com.au's Sunrise reports that lawyers acting for welfare recipients who had unlawful "robodebts" raised against them are continuing with their class action, even though the Australian Government has decided to offer refunds. More than 500,000 people have signed up to the legal action, brought by Gordon Legal, who are demanding the commonwealth pay compensation to anyone issued with an unlawful debt. It comes after Prime Minister Scott Morrison apologised for any "hurt or harm" to those affected by the failed scheme, which matched income data from the Australian Tax Office with income reported to Centrelink by welfare recipients. Victims were sent invoices and hounded to repay money they did not actually owe. Gordon Legal senior partner Peter Gordon told Sunrise he's continuing to pursue the matter as he believes the government should pay interest and compensation. "If you are someone who had $20,000 or 30,000 wrongly ripped from you, were chased by debt collectors, lost your job, your relationship or have been blackened as a welfare cheat - all over a scheme which was wrongful - then the judge may determine that the commonwealth breached a duty of care and you’re entitled to compensation," he explained. "Secondly, the Government probably made in excess of $100 million worth of interest on $1 billion of other people's money unlawfully taken and shouldn't be able to keep those gains." [GN] BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Accord in Securities Suit Wins Court Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has given final approval to the settlement entered into by the parties in the class action suit entitled, In re Banc of California Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 17-00118 AG, consolidated with SACV 17-00138 AG, according to Banc of California, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Company said, "On October 28, 2019, we entered into a Stipulation of Settlement ("Settlement Stipulation") with the lead plaintiff to settle class action lawsuits that were previously consolidated in the United District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") under the caption In re Banc of California Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 17-00118 AG, consolidated with SACV 17-00138 AG. Under the terms of the Settlement Stipulation, our insurance carriers will pay US$19.75 million, which will be distributed to eligible shareholders who purchased Company stock between April 15, 2016 and January 20, 2017, after payment of attorney's fees and costs, to be determined by the Court. We will not be required to contribute any cash to the settlement payments. Pursuant to the settlement, the action against us will be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff will also dismiss with prejudice its claims against our former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Steven Sugarman. While we do not believe the plaintiff's claims are meritorious, we believe that ending the costs and distraction of the litigation is in the best interests of the Company and our shareholders. On March 16, 2020, the Court gave final approval to the settlement, and that order is now final. The foregoing description of the settlement does not purport to be complete and is subject to, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the complete text of the settlement stipulation was filed with the Court." Banc of California, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Banc of California, National Association that provides banking products and services in the United States. The company offers deposit products, including checking, savings, money market, retirement, and interest and noninterest-bearing demand accounts, as well as certificates of deposit. The company was formerly known as First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name to Banc of California, Inc. in July 2013. Banc of California, Inc. was founded in 1941 and is headquartered in Santa Ana, California. BARNUM & CELILLO: Faces Thompson Employment Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barnum & Celillo Electric Inc. The case is captioned as Richard Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barnum & Celillo Electric Inc., Case No. 34-2020-00280337-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 8, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of the employment-related laws. Barnum & Celillo is an electrical & Lighting Contractor.[BN] BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Allison King Files Class Action to Seek Refunds ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tommy Witherspoon, writing for the Waco Tribune-Herald, reports that a growing wave of class-action lawsuits against universities is spreading across the country, filed by students alleging breach of contract and seeking refunds for actions schools took in response to the coronavirus outbreak. Baylor University recently joined the ranks of at least 125 private and public universities being named as defendants in at least 175 lawsuits across the country. The suit against Baylor seeks class-action status and was filed by Allison King, a sophomore from McAllen. She is represented by Roy Willey, an attorney from South Carolina whose firm has filed at least 30 lawsuits since April 8 against colleges and universities across the country. King's suit, filed in Waco's federal court, alleges breach of contract and unjust enrichment by Baylor and seeks refunds for tuition, parking, housing, dining and other costs associated with attending the private Baptist university after they closed the school and converted to online-only classes. "These cases are about basic fairness," Willey said in a statement. "Colleges and universities are not unlike any other business in America and they too have to tighten their belts during this unprecedented time. They are not any more entitled to keep money for services they are not delivering than the mom and pop bakery on Main Street. "Students and their families have prepaid tuition and fees for services, access to facilities and experiential education, and the universities and colleges are not delivering those services, access or experiences. Now universities are not delivering those services that students and their families have paid for, and it's not fair for the universities with multi-million dollar endowments to keep all of the money that students and their families have paid. It is not fair to pass the full burden onto students and their families." Baylor spokesperson Jason Cook said Baylor did refund housing, dining and parking balances to students for the spring semester. He declined to say how much the school refunded to students, but said the figure was in the "millions of dollars." Even though instruction was limited to online, students still had "interaction" with their professors and were given academic credit for coursework, Cook said. "Baylor University stands by the decisions that were made during the spring semester as part of an unprecedented time for our country and all of higher education," according to a statement from the school. "In a time where businesses and other organizations shut their doors from coast to coast, Baylor stepped up on behalf of our students through many unique, creative and sacrificial ways to fulfill our mission and provide educational services during a pandemic not experienced in more than 100 years." Last month, Baylor regents approved a $73.3 million budget cut, leaving a $679.9 million budget for the upcoming year. The school is under a hiring freeze, and administrators said at the time they would employ fewer adjunct instructors and would cut staff positions, though they had not decided which positions. King's lawsuit states she paid $21,421 to cover spring semester tuition, plus $2,261 for a general student fee, $50 for lab fees, $90 for chapel fees and $1,773 for a meal plan. The lawsuit alleges she was deprived of many aspects of college life after Baylor closed its campus March 16, including Big 12 sporting events, access to the 156,000-square-foot McLane Student Life Center and activities with sororities and fraternities, religious groups, honor societies and more. The lawsuit also alleges that studies show that online learning is not as effective as traditional, in-person instruction and that online colleges rank last in terms of "employer desirability of college type." "There is no question that class room learning - and all of the experiences that come with on-campus education - is more valuable to the student than online learning," the suit alleges. "Students pay - and borrow - hundreds of thousands of dollars for the on-campus experience because it provides the students the opportunity to engage directly with their professors, to meet and share experiences with diverse and accomplished individuals from around the world, to join student clubs, to build professional networks, and to experience the campus environment. "Online learning offers none of these opportunities - and carries few of the massive expenses associated with live classroom learning. For these reasons, many students spend tens of thousands of dollars on private colleges and universities that afford the opportunity for in-person college education." [GN] BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition and Fees, King Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON KING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, Case No. 6:20-cv-00504-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., June 5, 2020), seeks restitution, and declaratory relief resulting from Baylor's retention of the full tuition, meal plan, and fees paid by Ms. King and the other putative Class Members for services not being provided. In March 2020, in response to COVID-19 pandemic, Baylor, like many other universities, moved all learning online for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. Baylor canceled athletic and other on-campus recreational events, canceled students' meal plans, and ordered students to refrain from going on campus. As a result, all on-campus classes, dining, and other services and amenities were no longer available to Baylor students. Despite the harsh reality that students could no longer learn on campus, Baylor refused to provide a prorated refund of fees tied to on-campus services and amenities that were not available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester, says the complaint. Ms. King enrolled at Baylor for the Spring 2020 semester, which was scheduled to run from January 13, 2020, through May 11, 2020. Baylor is a private, not-for-profit university incorporated in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Waco, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Singley, Esq. Jeff Edwards, Esq. Scott Medlock, Esq. David James, Esq. EDWARDS LAW The Haehnel Building 1101 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78702 Telephone: 512 623-7727 Facsimile: 512 623-7729 E-mail: jeff@edwards-law.com mike@edwards-law.com david@edwards-law.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Joshua R. Levine, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com levine@kolawyers.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Anna Haac, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com ahaac@tzlegal.com BBX CAPITAL: Bid to Dismiss Boyd et al. Class Action Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ A motion to dismiss a purported class action filed by Eddie Boyd, et al., against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited ("BVU") is still pending, according to BBX Capital Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2020. The Company said, "On July 18, 2019, Eddie Boyd, et al. filed an action alleging that BVU and co-defendants violated the Missouri Merchandise Practices Act for allegedly making false statements and misrepresentations with respect to the sale of VOIs. Plaintiffs further have filed a purported class action allegation that BVU's charging of an administrative processing fee constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Bluegreen has moved to dismiss the action. Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action." BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation. BBX CAPITAL: Bluegreen, BVU Still Face Landon et al. Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations Corporation ("Bluegreen") and Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited ("BVU") continue to defend a class action suit initiated by Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare, according to BBX Capital Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2020. On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Bluegreen and BVU asserting claims for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal referral selling, and Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal attorney's fee provisions. Plaintiffs allegations include that Bluegreen failed to disclose the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of Bluegreen's initial contact with the purchaser; that Bluegreen misrepresented who the seller of the real property was; that Bluegreen misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that Bluegreen included an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales document(s); that Bluegreen offered an illegal "today only" incentive to purchase; and that Bluegreen utilizes an illegal referral selling program to induce the sale of VOIs. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons who, in Wisconsin, purchased from Bluegreen one or more VOIs within six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Bluegreen has moved to dismiss the case, and on November 27, 2019, the Court issued a ruling granting the motion in part. Bluegreen has answered the remaining claims. BBX Capital said, "Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action." BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation. BBX CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order in VOI Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action suit against Bluegreen Vacations Corporation ("Bluegreen") related to its sales of vacation ownership interests (VOIs) have appealed the Court's October 2019 summary judgment order, which was in favor of Bluegreen and dismissed all claims, according to BBX Capital Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2020. On September 22, 2017, Stephen Potje, Tamela Potje, Sharon Davis, Beafus Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin, Arnor Lee, Angela Lee, Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada, Emily Estrada, Michael Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters, Elaine Walters, and Mike Ericson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Bluegreen which asserted claims for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida False Advertising Law. In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false representations in connection with Bluegreen's sales of VOIs. The purported class action lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice after mediation. However, on or about April 24, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their individual claims in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Subsequently, on October 15, 2019, the Court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Bluegreen and dismissed all claims. Bluegreen has moved for reimbursement of its attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have appealed the summary judgment order. BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation. BBX CAPITAL: Settlement of Hernandez & Michael Suit v. BVU Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------- BBX Capital Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2020, that parties in the class action suit initiated by Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael against the Company's subsidiary, Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. (BVU), have agreed to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On February 28, 2018, Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael filed purported class action litigation in San Bernardino Superior Court against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited ("BVU"). The central claims in the complaint, as amended during June 2018, include alleged failures to pay overtime and wages at termination and to provide meal and rest periods, as well as claims relating to non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses; and a claim under the Private Attorney's General Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of approximately 660 hourly, non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California since March 1, 2014. The Company said, "In April 2019, the parties mediated and agreed to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. It is expected that the court will approve the settlement and the dismissal of the lawsuit after the settlement documents are executed." BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation. BBX CAPITAL: Wijesinha TCPA Class Action vs. BVU Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- The stay remains in effect for the class action suit initiated by Shehan Wijesinha against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited ("BVU") related to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), according to BBX Capital Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2020. On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). It is alleged that BVU called plaintiff's cell phone for telemarketing purposes using an automated dialing system and that plaintiff did not give BVU his express written consent to do so. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class comprised of other persons in the United States who, received similar calls from or on behalf of BVU without the person's consent. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. On July 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying this case pending a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission clarifying the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA and the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in a separate action brought against a VOI company by a plaintiff alleging violations of the TCPA. On January 7, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling consistent with BVU's position, but the case currently remains stayed. BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation. BEAUFORT, SC: Faces Munday Civil Rights Suit in South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beaufort County, et al. The case is captioned as Cheryl A. Munday and Margaret Devine, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Beaufort County, Philip Foot, Quandara Grant, John Does 1-5, and Jane Does 1-5, Case No. 9:20-cv-02144-DCN-BM (D.S.C., June 5, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David C. Norton. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Beaufort County is a county in the U.S. state of South Carolina. As of the 2010 census, its population was 162,233.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Bass Lohr, Esq. HOWELL GIBSON AND HUGHES PO Box 40 Beaufort, SC 29901 Telephone: (843) 522-2400 Facsimile: (843) 522-2429 E-mail: MLohr@hghpa.com BEMIS COMPANY: Court Consolidates Dixon and Stein Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ The federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has consolidated two pending securities lawsuits into a single class action against Bemis Company, Inc., among other defendants, according to Amcor plc's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The cases are: Dixon, et al. v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al. and Stein v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al., which were instituted on April 15, 2019 and April 17, 2019, respectively. The two lawsuits were brought by purported holders of Bemis stock against Bemis and Bemis directors and officers are pending in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which plaintiffs are seeking damages for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations. Plaintiffs allege a failure to disclose adequately information in the proxy statement issued in connection with the Amcor-Bemis merger. On March 10, 2020 the federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the two pending cases into a single class action. BENEFYTT TECH: $2.8MM Pact Reached in Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Benefytt Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Health Insurance Innovations, 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 parties in the consolidated securities suit captioned, In re Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.), have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter without any admission of liability or fault on the part of the Company or any of its current or former personnel for a settlement payment of US$2.8 million to be funded by the Company's insurers. This resolution remains subject both to formal documentation of the terms of the parties' agreement and to Court approval. In September 2017, three putative securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The cases were styled Cioe Investments Inc. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No. 1:17-cv-05316-NG-ST, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on September 11, 2017; Michael Vigorito v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No. 1:17-cv-06962, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 13, 2017; and Shilpi Kavra v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Patrick McNamee, Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on September 21, 2017. All three of the foregoing actions (the "Securities Actions") were filed after a decline in the trading price of the Company's common stock following the release of a report authored by a short-seller of the Company's common stock raising questions about, among other things, the Company's public disclosures relating to the Company's regulatory examinations and regulatory compliance. All three of the Securities Actions contained substantially similar allegations to those raised in the short-seller report alleging that the Company made materially false or misleading statements or omissions relating to regulatory compliance matters, particularly regarding the Company's application for a third-party administrator license in the State of Florida, which was issued by the State on February 14, 2018. In November and December 2017, the Cioe Investments and Vigorito cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and on December 28, 2017, they were consolidated with the Kavra matter under the case caption, In re Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.). On February 6, 2018, the court appointed Robert Rector as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel, and lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on March 23, 2018. The consolidated complaint, which dropped Patrick McNamee as a defendant and added Michael Kosloske as a defendant, largely sets forth the same factual allegations as the initially filed Securities Actions filed in September 2017 and added allegations relating to alleged materially false statements and omissions relating to the regulatory proceeding previously initiated against the Company by the Montana State Auditor, Commissioner of Securities and Insurance (the "CSI") which proceeding was dismissed on October 31, 2017. The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales by Messrs. Kosloske and Hershberger. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff in the action is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of a putative class of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during a period ending September 11, 2017. On May 7, 2018, the Company and co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. On March 29, 2019, the court sua sponte ordered mandatory mediation before United States Magistrate Judge Christopher Tuite, which did not result in a settlement. On June 28, 2019, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to dismiss, and dismissed all claims against Messrs. Southwell and Kosloske. Discovery commenced, and the Company opposed Plaintiff's motion to certify the putative class. The parties have since reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter without any admission of liability or fault on the part of the Company or any of its current or former personnel for a settlement payment of US$2.8 million to be funded by the Company's insurers. This resolution remains subject both to formal documentation of the terms of the parties' agreement and to Court approval. The Company said, "The settlement is recorded within accounts payable and accrued expenses and the related insurance recoverable is recorded in accounts receivable, net, prepaid expenses and other current assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets." Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company, primarily engages in the development and operation of private e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy administration platforms. It offers a range of Medicare-related insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and supplemental products. The company was formerly known as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt Technologies, Inc. in March 2020. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is based in Tampa, Florida. BENEFYTT TECH: Appeal Still Pending on 2 Classes in Moser TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Benefytt Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.) is still waiting for the Court's ruling on its appeal from the District Court's August 7, 2019 order certifying two classes in the Moser Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. Benefytt Technologies said, "The Company has received a number of private-party claims relating to telephonic-sales calls allegedly conducted by independent third-party distributors. Generally, these claims assert that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), although the Company does not engage in the alleged activities. In fact, the Company maintains internal and external compliance staff and processes to monitor independent third-party distributor compliance. Historically, the Company has been successful at obtaining dismissals or settling the claims for immaterial amounts. The Company continues to vigorously defend itself in pending cases, some styled as purported class-actions, filed by what has been determined to be serial-professional plaintiffs or serial TCPA attorneys such as those cases filed by Kenneth Moser, Robert Hossfeld, Mary Bilek, Chrisopher Bilek, Barbara Mohon, and Ken Johansen. On August 7, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 17-CV-1127) certified two classes in the Moser case, and the Company timely appealed the Court's Order on the Motion for Class Certification. The parties are awaiting a ruling on such." Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company, primarily engages in the development and operation of private e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy administration platforms. It offers a range of Medicare-related insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and supplemental products. The company was formerly known as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt Technologies, Inc. in March 2020. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is based in Tampa, Florida. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Florida Suit in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class action suit spearheaded by Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System remains in discovery, according to Benefytt Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.)'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On February 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled Julian Keippel v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael D. Hershberger, Case No. 8:19-cv-00421, was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer, and chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. According to the complaint, the plaintiff in the action is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of a putative class of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the period February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions during the purported class period relating to the Company's relationship with third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health Plans and affiliates. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed to disclose to investors that a substantial portion of the Company's revenues were derived from third parties who allegedly used deceptive tactics to sell the Company's products and that regulatory scrutiny of such third parties would materially impact the Company's operations. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act. On May 13, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiff Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System and lead counsel Saxena White P.A. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 19, 2019. The consolidated complaint incorporated the allegations from the first complaint and added allegations of alleged materially false or misleading statements or material omissions relating to alleged deficiencies in the Company's compliance and customer service programs and the number of complaints the Company received from consumers relating to third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health and affiliates. The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales by Messrs. Southwell and Hershberger. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative classes of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during a purported class period of September 25, 2017 through April 11, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the action, which the court denied on November 4, 2019. The case is currently in discovery. The Company said it intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company, primarily engages in the development and operation of private e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy administration platforms. It offers a range of Medicare-related insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and supplemental products. The company was formerly known as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt Technologies, Inc. in March 2020. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is based in Tampa, Florida. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Belin et al. Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Benefytt Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that it remains a defendant in a proposed class action, styled , styled as Belin et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. The Company said, "Separate from the FTC case against Simple Health, a proposed class action, but not yet certified, styled as Belin et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-61430, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 7, 2019. The case alleges that the Company conspired with Simple Health using a theory of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act along with other claims and seeks unspecified damages. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was partially denied and the Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims." Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company, primarily engages in the development and operation of private e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy administration platforms. It offers a range of Medicare-related insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and supplemental products. The company was formerly known as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt Technologies, Inc. in March 2020. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is based in Tampa, Florida. BIG SKY: Averts Student-Athletes' Concussion Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Manson, writing for Chicago Law Bulletin, reports that the Big Sky Conference does not have to face a proposed class-action lawsuit in Chicago federal court accusing it of failing to protect student-athletes who suffered concussions. In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee did not rule on the merits of allegations that Big Sky did not follow proper procedures to prevent and treat concussions when plaintiff Eric Weston played football for Weber State University in Utah. Instead, Lee held Big Sky does not have enough contacts with Indiana -- the state where co-defendant NCAA is based -- to be subject to personal jurisdiction in the case. He granted Big Sky's motion to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. The NCAA remains as a defendant in the suit. Weber State is an NCAA Division I school in the Big Sky Conference. Weston played defensive end for the Weber State Wildcats from 1996 to 1997. He alleges he repeatedly suffered concussive and subconcussive hits during practices and games, but was quickly put back into play. Big Sky and the NCAA knew at the time that concussion treatment, safety protocols and return-to-play guidelines were needed to monitor players for traumatic brain injury and to mitigate its effects, Weston alleges, but failed to implement such measures. As a result of the repeated hits he sustained, Weston alleges, he suffers from such maladies as anxiety, depression, fatigue, neurological disorders, memory loss and mood swings. Weston's suit includes counts of negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of express contract as third-party beneficiaries and unjust enrichment. In his opinion on June 12, Lee wrote a judge presiding over a suit that is in federal court under diversity jurisdiction generally applies the personal jurisdiction rules of the state where he or she is located. But when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers cases from one judicial district to another, the judge who receives the cases "has all the jurisdiction and powers over pretrial proceedings in the actions transferred to him that the transferor judge would have had in the absence of transfer," Lee wrote, quoting In re FMC Corp. Patent Litigation, 422 F. Supp. 1163 (J.P.M.L. 1976). The MDL panel transferred Weston's case to the Northern District of Illinois from the Southern District of Indiana in July 2017. Weston, Lee wrote, maintains the court has specific jurisdiction over Big Sky under Indiana law. Specific jurisdiction exists where "the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at the forum state or purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in that state" and "the alleged injury arises out of the defendant's forum-related activities," Lee wrote, quoting Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010). Quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (1940), he wrote defendants are subject to specific jurisdiction if their contacts with the state are enough that requiring them to face a suit does not run counter to "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Big Sky did not have those kind of contacts with Indiana, Lee wrote. Quoting a filing by Weston, Lee noted he argues that Big Sky's purported failure to protect him from concussions "resulted directly from NCAA regulations of Division I football conference that emanated from Indiana, and was applied by Big Sky." "But there is no dispute that the NCAA relocated to Indiana in 1999," Lee wrote, "and Weston does nothing to explain how anything that could have happened in Indiana after 1999 could have related to his injuries that allegedly occurred at [Weber State] in 1996 and 1997." The case is Eric Weston v. Big Sky Conference, et al., No. 17 C 4975. The lead attorney for Weston is Daniel J. Schneider of Edelson P.C. "We were, of course, pleased with the court's recent rulings, which are the latest in a line of excellent opinions for the plaintiffs in this litigation," Benjamin H. Richman of Edelson said in a statement. "We look forward to continuing with the litigation from here and ultimately trying these cases." The lead attorney for Big Sky is Paul Rafferty of Jones Day in Irvine, Calif. The lead attorney for the NCAA is Mark S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP. Neither Rafferty nor Mester could be reached for comment. [GN] BLOOM ENERGY: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in James Hunt Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2020, that the Plaintiffs in a class action suit initiated by Elissa Roberts and currently has James Hunt as the appointed lead plaintiff have filed a second amended complaint, adding claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The Company said, "In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the federal district court for the Northern District of California against us, certain members of our senior management team, and certain of our directors alleging violations under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for alleged misleading statements or omissions in our Form S-1 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with our July 25, 2018 initial public offering. On September 3, 2019, James Hunt was appointed as lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky was appointed as plaintiff's counsel. On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the underwriters in our initial public offering, claims under Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and extending the class period to September 16, 2019. On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The Second Amended complaint also adds allegations pertaining to the Restatement and, as to claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, extends the class period through February 12, 2020. We believe the complaint to be without merit and we intend to vigorously defend." Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Reaches Pact to Nix Group Annuity Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, Brighthouse Financial, Inc., et al. have entered into a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice for the Group Annuity Class Action initiated by Leroy and Geraldine Atkins in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, according to Brighthouse Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Group Annuity Class Action was filed on November 18, 2019. Plaintiffs have filed the purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, Brighthouse Financial, Inc., MetLife, Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company relating to the pension closeout business. Plaintiffs allege that annuity benefits were due but have not been paid. Plaintiffs also allege they were not able to obtain information as to the group annuity contract and the benefit other than what was on a benefit election form. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all annuitants and their designated beneficiaries who were due annuity payments pursuant to group annuity contracts purchased from defendants by sponsors of employer provided defined benefit plans. Plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to timely contact, notify and pay overdue annuity benefits and interest to retirees. The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (contract and tort), unjust enrichment, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. In March 2020, Brighthouse Life Insurance Company and Brighthouse Financial, Inc. filed a joint motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Cazer Class Action Voluntarily Dropped ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled, Cazer v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., has been voluntarily dismissed, according to Caesars Entertainment Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On September 13, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against Caesars, each member of the Caesars Board and Eldorado in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada. The lawsuit, captioned Cazer v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., Civil Action No. A-19-801900-C, asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duties against the Caesars Board and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against Caesars in connection with the Merger. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the members of the Caesars Board breached their fiduciary duties, and Caesars aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties, by failing to disclose (i) certain information about the process leading up to the approval of the Merger by the Caesars Board; and (ii) certain financial information relating to the financial advisors' analyses of the transaction. The plaintiff sought (i) to compel the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to Caesars stockholders in connection with the Merger in accordance with the information discussed in the complaint and (ii) an accounting to plaintiff for all damages suffered as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing. The plaintiff also sought an award of costs and disbursements incurred in the action, including a reasonable allowance for expert fees and attorneys' fees. On March 11, 2020, the Cazer complaint was voluntarily dismissed. Caesars Entertainment Corporation operates as a gaming company. The Company operates casino resorts on multiple continents. Caesars also owns an on-line gaming business provides real money casino and poker games in the United Kingdom and play for fun offerings in other jurisdictions. The company is based in Las Vegas Nevada. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Gershman Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caesars Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the lawsuit styled, Gershman v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., has been voluntarily dismissed. The Company said, "On September 12, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against Caesars, each member of the Caesars Board and Eldorado in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit, captioned Gershman v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01720, alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Merger. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Caesars violated the securities laws by failing to (i) disclose certain information about the process leading up to the approval of the Merger by the Caesars Board; (ii) disclose certain financial information relating to the financial advisors' analyses of the transaction; and (iii) obtain a proper valuation for Caesars. The plaintiff sought (i) to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with filing an amendment to the Eldorado S-4 and consummating the Merger, unless and until Caesars discloses to its stockholders the allegedly material information discussed in the complaint and (ii) if the Merger is consummated, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages. The plaintiff also sought an award of costs and disbursements incurred in the action, including a reasonable allowance for expert fees and attorneys' fees. On March 9, 2020, the Gershman complaint was voluntarily dismissed." Caesars Entertainment Corporation operates as a gaming company. The Company operates casino resorts on multiple continents. Caesars also owns an on-line gaming business provides real money casino and poker games in the United Kingdom and play for fun offerings in other jurisdictions. The company is based in Las Vegas Nevada. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Palkon Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Caesars Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the lawsuit styled, Palkon v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., has been voluntarily dismissed. The Company said, "On September 9, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against Caesars, each member of the Caesars Board, Eldorado and Merger Sub in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit, captioned Palkon v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01679, alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Merger. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Caesars and/or Eldorado violated the securities laws by failing to disclose (i) certain information about the process leading up to the approval of the Merger by the Caesars Board; (ii) certain financial information relating to the financial advisors' analyses of the transaction; and (iii) certain information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the financial advisor. The plaintiff sought, among other things, (i) to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the Merger, unless and until Caesars discloses to its stockholders the allegedly material information discussed in the complaint and (ii) if the Merger is consummated, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages suffered as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing. The plaintiff also sought an award of costs incurred in the action, including a reasonable allowance for expert fees and attorneys' fees. On March 9, 2020, the Palkon complaint was voluntarily dismissed." Caesars Entertainment Corporation operates as a gaming company. The Company operates casino resorts on multiple continents. Caesars also owns an on-line gaming business provides real money casino and poker games in the United Kingdom and play for fun offerings in other jurisdictions. The company is based in Las Vegas Nevada. CASPER SLEEP: Patel Sues Over Stock Trading Below IPO Price ----------------------------------------------------------- NIMISHKUMAR PATEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CASPER SLEEP INC., PHILIP KRIM, GREGORY MACFARLANE, NEIL PARIKH, DIANE IRVINE, ANTHONY FLORENCE, JACK LAZAR, BENJAMIN LERER, KAREN KATZ, DANI REISS, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., PIPER SANDLER & CO. and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, Case No. 652284/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., June 5, 2020), asserts strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against Casper, the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering, and certain Casper officers and directors. The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all persons, who purchased Casper common stock in or traceable to the Company's February 7, 2020 initial public offering. The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Plaintiff avers, the Registration Statement failed to disclose the adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO. As of market close on June 4, 2020, Casper stock was trading at just $8.18 per share, 32% below the IPO price. The Plaintiff purchased Casper common stock in and traceable to the IPO and has been damaged thereby. Casper is a mattress and sleep aid company. The Individual Defendant are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631 367-7100 Facsimile: 631 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com CELSION CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in O'Connor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Celsion Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 16, 2020, that a settlement agreement has been entered in the suit entitled, O'Connor v. Braun et al., Docket No. MER-C-000068-19 The Company entered into a settlement agreement and release with respect to the previously announced derivative and putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County Chancery Division (the "Settlement Agreement"), against the Company (as both a class action defendant and nominal defendant), and certain of its officers and directors, with the caption O'Connor v. Braun et al., Docket No. MER-C-000068-19 (the "Shareholder Action"). The Shareholder Action alleged breaches of the defendants' fiduciary duty based on allegations that the defendants omitted material information and made or approved improper statements when seeking shareholder approval of the Stock Plan. The Settlement Agreement remains subject to the approval of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County Chancery Division. Celsion Corporation, a development stage oncology drug company, focuses on the development and commercialization of directed chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA based therapies for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers. Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. CENTURY-NATIONAL: Refuses to Pay Insureds, Unmasked Mgmt. Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Unmasked Management, Inc., Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #1 LP, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #2 LP, and Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #3 LP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTURY-NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01129-H-MDD (S.D. Cal., June 19, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its refusal to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs existence, however, is now threatened by COVID-19. To protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or if they had to act in order to prevent further property damage, the Plaintiffs purchased insurance coverage from Century-National, including special property coverage, as set forth in Century- National's Businessowner's Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form (Form CP 00 30 04 02) ("Special Property Coverage Form"). Century-National's Special Property Coverage Form, under a section entitled "Duties in the Event of Loss" mandates that Century National's insured "must see that the following are done in the event of loss ... [t]ake all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further damage and keep a record of your expenses necessary to protect the Covered Property, for consideration in the settlement of the claim." This is commonly referred to as "Sue and Labor" coverage. Unlike many policies that provide Business Income coverage, Century-National's Special Property Coverage Form does not include, and is not subject to, any exclusion for losses caused by the spread of viruses or communicable diseases, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs say that they were forced to suspend or reduce business at their restaurants due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders issued by civil authorities in California. They argue that Century-National has, on a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. The Plaintiffs own and operate Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shops, located in San Diego and Carlsbad, California. Century-National is an insurance company organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in Van Nuys, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Mark Hamill, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Mark Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Phone: 440-953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex Brown, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Phone: (713) 659-5200 Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: 608-286-2302 Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com jbowen@bbblawllp.com jbair@bbblawllp.com fbowen@bbblawllp.com - and - Douglas Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: 713-917-0024 Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW: 4th Cir. Upholds $2.6MM Deal in Barchiesi ------------------------------------------------------------------ Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Charlotte School of Law's $2.6 million class action settlement to resolve claims that it misled students about its accreditation status remains intact following an unsuccessful appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The unpublished decision, authored by Judge Rossie D. Alston, affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement in full. The appeal, filed by a group of around 25 objecting class members, challenged, among other things, the appropriateness of a limited fund settlement, which unlike most class action settlements, doesn't provide members the ability to opt-out. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., limited fund settlements may be appropriate when the fund, set at its maximum, still won't be able to satisfy total liquidated claims, the entirety of the inadequate fund will be devoted to the overwhelming claims, and claimants are treated equitably in terms of distribution. Objectors argued that the limited fund wasn't maxed-out and that the defendants disproportionately benefited from the settlement insofar as they were allowed to keep their businesses. The panel disagreed, concluding that the district judge's analysis of CSL's ability to pay was well-supported by evidence that its liabilities far exceeded its assets, and that there were only two available sources of money for the settlement — one of which was an insurance policy that provided for all but $150,000 of the fund. The class, defined to include all individuals who attended CSL between September 2013 and August 2017, wasn't over- or under-inclusive, according to the court. And the settlement's distribution system, whereby the administrator made awards to class members based on the strength and value of their claims, had a rational basis the district court reasonably found fair. Rejecting objectors' fairness challenge, the court said the parties were able to conduct the discovery necessary to engage in informed, arms-length negotiations. And the settlement was adequate, the court concluded, particularly given the likelihood that ongoing litigation might further reduce the class's recoveries. The court rejected a separate, but related appeal of the district court's denial of a motion for settlement discovery, concluding the district court didn't abuse its discretion in finding the objectors failed to show that the settlement shouldn't be approved or that the discovery was somehow insufficient. Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and Barbara Milano Keenan joined in the decision. Objectors are represented by Martin & Jones PLLC, Reiss and Nutt PLLC, and Shipman & Wright LLP. Defendants are represented by Cooley. The case is Barchiesi v. Charlotte Sch. of Law, LLC, 4th Cir., No. 19-1148, 6/11/20. [GN] CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Gottlieb Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Mark Gottlieb, is pending. On August 14, 2019, Mark Gottlieb, a Company stockholder, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Jonathan Duskin; Seth Johnson; Keri Jones; Kent Kleeberger; William Sharpe, III; Joel Waller and Laura Weil (the "Named Directors"), B. Riley FBR, Inc. and B. Riley Financial Inc., in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, on behalf of himself and all stockholders who held shares as of December 20, 2018. The lawsuit alleges that the Named Directors breached their duty of loyalty in connection with the Company's rejection in December of 2018, of an unsolicited bid to acquire the Company. The lawsuit further alleges that the B. Riley firms aided and abetted the asserted breach of the duty of loyalty by the Named Directors. The Company believes the Complaint is without merit. The Named Directors, and the Company on their behalf, together with the B. Riley firms, intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On September 18, 2019, the Director Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion has been briefed by Plaintiff and the Defendants and oral argument on the motion was held before the Court of Chancery on February 13, 2020 and the court has not yet issued its ruling. On May 27, 2020, the court announced a partial decision on the pending motions but asked for further briefing on the potentially dispositive issue of whether the claim is a derivative or direct, i.e. whether it belongs to the Company and cannot be brought by the Plaintiff or whether he may bring it directly. The parties are in the process of drafting such briefs. Christopher & Banks Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of private-brand women's apparel andaccessories in the United States. It was formerly known as Braun's Fashions Corporation and changed its name to Christopher & Banks Corporation in July 2000. The Company was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota. CITIBANK NA: Fahmia Seeks to Recover Agent Fees ----------------------------------------------- Fahmia, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20-cv-04146 (S.D. N.Y., May 29, 2020), seeks compensation for processing PPP loans, for services rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration in violation of the CARES Act, for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and for violation of the California Business & Professions Code. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the "Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by private lenders, including Citibank. Fahmia, Inc. is an accounting practice from Torrance, California. It sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on behalf of its clients and expected to be paid agent fees from Citibank upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP. However, it was denied these fees after the loans were released. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine S. Kusel, Esq. Michele M. Vercoski, Esq. Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Ste. 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com mmv@mccunewright.com tqn@mccunewright.com+ esk@mccunewright.com COMMONWEALTH BANK: Report Breathes New Life Into Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- James Frost and James Eyers, writing for The Australian Financial Review, report that a secret report into the handling of the AUSTRAC scandal by Commonwealth Bank's chairman and directors has breathed new life into a $7 billion class action against the bank while raising questions about the status of ASIC's own investigation into the matter. As revealed by The Australian Financial Review on June 16, a schism in the bank's boardroom forced CBA to conduct an independent review into what exactly took place at its October 2016 board meeting, after opposing versions of events emerged among directors. [GN] COMMONWEALTH BANK: Slater and Gordon Files Suit Over Junk Insurance ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jassmyn Goh, writing for Money Management (Australia), reports that Slater and Gordon has filed a class action against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), after allegations the bank sold customers junk insurance between January 1, 2010, and March 7, 2018. The class action was filed in the Federal Court and the proceedings had also been brought against The Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited. In an announcement, Slater and Gordon said the bank had admitted the products were "worthless" and were sold to hundreds of thousands of customers. While the products were continued to be sold until March 2018, existing polities had simply been rolled over and many customers were "continuing to be charged thousands of dollars in fees for the worthless products to this day", the law firm said. Slater and Gordon practice group leader, Andrew Paull said the class action gave a voice to those who were vulnerable and duped into buying worthless insurance. It would allow those customers to hold the bank to account for its wrongdoing. "A 2018 review of the Commonwealth Bank's sale of consumer credit insurance products revealed that more than 200,000 people who were unemployed or not working full time had been sold this type of policy, meaning it was very unlikely they would have been able to claim against the insurance," Paull said. "This is reprehensible behaviour by the bank, which has chosen to compensate only a negligible portion of its customers, despite their admission that they knew the insurance was worthless. "This move to return only a small portion of its customers premiums seems to have been a tokenistic effort to protect the bank's brand, rather than a genuine attempt to make good its past wrongdoing." The firm said consumers who purchased either credit card plus or personal loan insurance, and have paid a premium since 2010 may be included in the class action. In an announcement to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), CBA acknowledged the class action and said it would review the claim. [GN] CONDUENT INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June 5, 2020, Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a government services company and certain of its executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Emps. Ret. Sys. of the Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth. v. Conduent Inc., No. CV-19-8237-SDW-SCM, 2020 WL 3026536 (D.N.J. June 5, 2020). Plaintiff alleged that the company had overstated the progress it was making in modernizing the IT infrastructure that supported its electronic toll collection business. The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations, as well as scienter and loss causation. Plaintiff alleged that the company promoted itself to investors by touting a strategic business plan to grow the company by relying on technology, and falsely asserted that the first phase of that plan was complete. Id. at *1–2. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that, during an earnings call, the company represented to investors that, "in 2017, we addressed" the areas that were the subject of the first phase of the business plan, and that "[n]ext we expect to see benefits from the platform rationalization work completed last year." Id. at *2. Similarly, the company stated that "[d]uring our first year, we needed to" conduct an inventory of IT systems and that "[s]tarting in 2018, we'll begin our work to modernize our offerings with cutting-edge technology." Id. Moreover, the company's revenue guidance during the call indicated that the company "expect[s] transportation [revenue] inside of Public Sector to grow in 2018." Id. The Court first determined that the alleged misstatements and omissions regarding the business plan were specific and material because they "significantly altered the total mix of information available" to the reasonable investor, ruling that the company's own efforts to inform investors about milestones in the business plan reflected the value of the information. Id. at *4–5. In addition, the Court rejected the argument that the alleged misrepresentations were subject to the "safe harbor" provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act for forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Id. at *6. The Court determined that the alleged misstatements reflected either "historical facts or a then-present state of affairs," and that alleged omissions do not qualify for safe harbor protection because they are not forward-looking statements. Id. at *6–7. The Court further held that the complaint sufficiently alleged scienter as against the individual defendants because plaintiff alleged that the tolling operations were a "core" business segment, making up $299 million in revenue and 5.5% of the company's total revenues and serving approximately 50% of all automated tolling systems in the United States (id. at *2), and that the company's failure to complete the first phase of its business plan resulted in service issues and network outages, impacting nearly all customers on the East Coast and causing government agencies in several states to fine or withhold payments from the company (id. at *3). The Court thus concluded it was "implausible" that the company's executives were not aware of problems with its tolling platform. Id. at *8. In addition, the Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged "corporate scienter" based on alleged misconduct attributable only to management level officials. Id. While noting that the Third Circuit had not directly addressed whether allegations of "corporate scienter" could support a Section 10(b) claim, the Court also explained that the Third Circuit had "implied" that it may be possible to plead corporate scienter based on an alleged misrepresentation "so dramatic [that it] would have been approved by corporate officials sufficiently knowledgeable about the company to know that [it] was false." Id. at *8 n.9. In particular, the Court pointed to allegations that a confidential witness attended monthly meetings -- which were also attended by various company senior executives -- to discuss incidents that impacted customers or had a significant impact on the company's business. Id. at *8. The Court concluded that these allegations, together with the allegations regarding the importance of the business plan, the "core" nature of the tolling business, and the impact of infrastructure problems on the tolling business, supported an inference of corporate scienter. Id. The Court also held that plaintiff had adequately alleged loss causation by alleging that the company issued a corrective disclosure revealing that it had missed revenue expectations for the current quarter and revising its revenue guidance for the current fiscal year because of "sub-optimal performance" by vendors and "sub-standard IT infrastructure." Id. at *9. Following this disclosure, plaintiff alleged that the company's stock fell 29%, and multiple analyst reports addressed the alleged corrective disclosure, one of which noted that the technology issues "had likely been a problem for some time and could have been shared with investors earlier." Id. The Court concluded that these allegations, taken together, were sufficient to meet the requirement of a "short and plain statement" of economic loss and its causal connection to alleged misrepresentations. Id. [GN] CV SCIENCES: Court Narrows Claims in Colette Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the case, Michelene Colette et al v. CV Sciences, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-10227 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Virginia A. Phillips on May 22, 2020, entered an order granting, in part, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and staying remaining Causes of Action. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief and stays the remaining causes of action. The parties are directed to file joint status reports with the Court every 90 days, beginning on September 1, 2020. 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 on December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette filed a purported class action complaint in the Central District of California, alleging the labeling on the Company's products violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Colette Complaint. Instead of opposing the company's motion, plaintiffs elected to file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020. On March 11, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion has been fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision from the court. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. 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. DELOITTE CONSULTING: Alexander Slams Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ Melissa Alexander, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04129 (S.D. N.Y., May 29, 2020), seeks monetary, actual and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, prejudgment interest, costs, fees and attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of prosecuting this action and such other and further relief resulting from breach of implied and express contract, negligence, invasion of privacy and for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Deloitte contracts with state agencies--including the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the Illinois Department of Employment Security, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment and the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services to create and maintain web-portals by which applicants may apply for benefits and communicate with the state agencies. Alexander applied for unemployment benefits through the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services online portal on May 13, 2020. On May 20, 2020, Deloitte had discovered that the web-portal it created and maintained exposed applicants' Personal Information to the public. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Tel.: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com DONAGHY SALES: Geltz Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- DILLON GELTZ, an aggrieved employee, on behalf of himself and other current and former employees v. DONAGHY SALES, LLC, an entity unknown, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG01633 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., June 5, 2020), seeks unpaid wages and penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants jointly and severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in failing to provide all meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay all minimum and overtime wages, failing to reimburse for all necessary business-related costs and expenses, and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendants in a non-exempt, hourly-paid position. Donaghy Sales was founded in 1968. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of beer, ale, porter, and other malt beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. Brian G. Lee, Esq. YOON LAW, APC One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 ELLATION LLC: Letize Sues Over Shut Down of Digital Drops App ------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON LETIZE, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. ELLATION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and RARE BITS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03739-JCS (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2020), is a proposed nationwide class action against the Defendants for misleading consumers about whether, and how long, they could use the Digital Drops application and the digital stickers and other digital collectible items purchased by consumers via that app. The Defendants launched the Digital Drops app around August 2019. Digital Drops was a digital anime stickers and collectibles app available for iOS and Android devices. Through their Digital Drops app, the Defendants sold digital collectibles based on anime (Japanese animated) television shows. In early February 2020, the Defendants announced that on February 17, 2020, at 11:59 p.m. PST, the Defendants would shut down the servers running the Digital Drops app and that the Products would no longer be accessible by its owners. Thus, on and after February 18, 2020--just six months after the Defendants launched the Digital Drops app--the Plaintiff and the Class members would no longer be able to use the Digital Drops app at all, and the Defendants will have eliminated all of the collectible anime content purchased by consumers. Ellation operates as a digital media company. The Company provides video services. Ellation serves clients worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com cramirez@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com ENDOLOGIX INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Nguyen Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June 10, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class action against a medical device company and certain of its executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc., ––F.3d––, 2020 WL 3069776 (9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff alleged that the company's statements regarding the likelihood of Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of a new product were misleading because the device had allegedly experienced problems following its earlier introduction in the European market. Explaining that implausible allegations cannot create a strong inference of scienter, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff's allegations failed to satisfy the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") because plaintiff's core theory of the case had no basis in logic or common experience. Because plaintiff had already had an opportunity to replead, the Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff alleged that, while the FDA approval process was ongoing, the company and its CEO and CFO became aware that the product was "migrating" in European patients -- that is, moving from the initial location in the body in which it had been placed. Id. at *3. Relying on statements from a confidential witness, plaintiff alleged that this complication was a serious problem that was investigated by the company, that the two individual defendants were involved in those efforts, and that the issue was discussed during a series of high-level meetings and at the company's annual symposium. Id. Plaintiff also pointed to two studies published in Europe that found risks of migration. Id. at *4. Plaintiff alleged that in spite of these issues, the executives misleadingly stated in an investor call and press release that the product "continues to do a fantastic performance outside of the U.S.," that it was "doing as expected" with "[n]o surprises," and that the product "remain[ed] on track with our timeline for potential FDA approval." Id. Ultimately, after data showed an increase in the migration rate after the product had been implanted for more than a year, the company announced that the product would not be approved by the FDA under the original timeline. Id. at *5. As a result, the company abandoned its efforts to seek approval of the product and announced that it would focus on a second-generation device. Id. at *6. The Court explained that plaintiff's "core theory" was that defendants' statements about FDA approval were false "because defendants knew, based on their experience in Europe, that [the product] would encounter migration issues." Id. at *8. The Court observed, however, that this theory "does not make a whole lot of sense" and "depends on the supposition that defendants would rather keep the stock price high for a time and then face the inevitable fallout once [the product's] ‘unsolvable' migration problem was revealed." Id. The Court further noted that the complaint lacked any allegations that the executives sought to profit from the alleged scheme, such as by selling stock at an inflated price. Id. The Court concluded that "the notion that a company would promise FDA approval that it knew would not materialize does not, without more, create a strong inference of intent to deceive or deliberate recklessness." Id. Moreover, with respect to the allegations attributed to a confidential witness, the Ninth Circuit explained that the witness left the company before many of the alleged misstatements occurred and before the company reported less favorable second-year data, and thus there was "ample basis to question aspects of [the witness's] claimed knowledge." Id. at *9. The Ninth Circuit further determined that the statements attributed to the confidential witness were "high on alarming adjectives" but "short on the facts" and failed to provide sufficient detail regarding issues discovered with European patients and the specific relationship between those issues and the FDA process. Id. The Court also noted that the allegations themselves "confirmed the absence of a strong inference of scienter." Id. at *10. In particular, the complaint focused primarily on a European study that the company actually disclosed and discussed on an investor call, and explained at the time that the study used a different definition of migration that did not meet the benchmark used by the FDA. Id. And while plaintiff had pointed to a case study regarding a severe adverse outcome in a single patient, the Court emphasized that the complaint provided "no details on the circumstances of this patient or why this case report should have alerted [the company] to a broader problem." Id. Ultimately, the Court concluded that "[t]he more plausible inference to be drawn from the allegations in the complaint is that defendants made promising statements about the timing of FDA approval based on the initial results of the U.S. clinical trial, but then modulated their optimism when the results began to raise more questions." Id. at *11. [GN] ERIE INSURANCE: Capriccio Slams Denied Insurance Coverage --------------------------------------------------------- Capriccio Parkway, LLC and Capriccio, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-11291 (Pa. Comm. Pleas, May 29, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief from breach of contract. Capriccio Parkway, LLC operates as "Capriccio Cafe and Bar at Cret Park" while Capriccio, Inc. operates as "Capriccio Cafe at Wills Eye Hospital." Capricio purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy from Erie Insurance, a national property-casualty insurance company, to protect it in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, Erie Insurance denied coverage despite that policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. John E. Sindoni, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (610) 822-0200 Fax: (610) 822-0206 Email: MBoni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com JSindoni@bonizack.com FCI DANBURY: Russian Pilot to Join Class Action to Get Release -------------------------------------------------------------- TASS of the Russian News Agency reports that the defense of Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, who is currently imprisoned in the US's FCI Danbury, plans to join the class-action lawsuit against the FCI administration in a bid to ensure the pilot's release. "We hope that, after we obtain the materials about Yaroshenko's health, the full set, we will be able to make a strong argument to include Konstantin to the list of vulnerable Danbury prisoners who must be released by order of the federal judge," Yaroshenko's lawyer Alexey Tarasov said. According to Tarasov, the correctional institution currently prepares the set of documents on Yaroshenko's health which would make it possible to join the lawsuit, filed to the Federal Connecticut Court by a number of US human rights organizations against the Danbury warden. The lawyer explained that the judge, who reviewed the lawsuit, was not satisfied with the superficial analysis the prison conducted regarding prisoners with health conditions. "If a patient's medical history included certain codes, which corresponded to health conditions, then that prisoner was included into a list of prisoners with ailments, incompatible with the coronavirus. However, these codes that are in the prison database, are very far from the real medical conditions of the inmates," Tarasov said. According to the lawyer, it has become known that the prison administration could have destroyed a part of the inmates' medical documents. "[On June 11], a motion was filed to rule the prison's medical aid inadequate, and this happened because the prison destroyed the data regarding who and when sought medical assistance," the lawyer said. In a bid to receive medical aid, the inmated filed special forms every time. During the review of the class-action lawsuit, it was revealed that the prison administration destroyed these forms after seven days. The Yaroshenko case In 2011, Yarkoshenko was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He denies his guilt entirely and considers his arrest a provocation, and his case - a fabrication. He was expatriated to the US from Liberia, where he was arrested on May 28, 2010. Agents of the US Drug Enforcement Agency operating undercover ostensibly obtained evidence Yaroshenko had criminal intent to transport a large batch of cocaine. On June 4, Russian Embassy to the US once again called on Washington to freed Russian nationals in US prisons over the coronavirus infection threat. According to Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov, people with serious conditions, who are especially susceptible to the coronavirus infection, cause the highest concerns. Among that are Konstantin Yaroshenko, Viktor Bout, Roman Seleznyov, Bogdana Osipova and Oleg Nikitin. [GN] FUEGO PICANTE: Wrongfully Withholds Earned Wages, Ortega Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Ortega, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. FUEGO PICANTE CORP. and ANTONIO GOMEZ (DBA AS FUEGO PICANTE GUATEMALTECO) jointly and severally, Case No. 0:20-cv-02733 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law to remedy the Defendants' wrongful withholding of the Plaintiff's lawfully earned wages compensation. The lawsuit is also brought for violations of minimum wage compensation requirements, and for failure of the Defendants to comply with notice and record-keeping requirements. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 91 per week. The Plaintiff averaged thirteen hours a day and worked seven days a week. As a result of the Defendants' actions, of not paying at least minimum wage the Plaintiff has suffered great hardship and damages. The Defendant has withheld wages from the Plaintiff twice, including failure to pay the Plaintiff for his last week of work. The Defendant also unlawfully penalized the Plaintiff for taking necessary time off work by deducting an amount greater than the Plaintiff's hourly rate for every hour the Plaintiff took off. Paradoxically, this resulted in the Plaintiff owing Defendant money, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ortega was employed by the Defendants as a cook from November 3, 2019, until March 12, 2020. FUEGO PICANTE CORP. owns and operates FUEGO PICANTE RESTAURANTE GUATEMALTECO located in Uniondale, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.FightForUrRights.com FUJI HANA: Ye Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ling Qin Ye, Ling Qiang Ye, Ling Hui Ye, and Wen Ke Ye, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FUJI HANA RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Fuji Hana Kosher Japanese Restaurant d/b/a Fuji Hana; LORRAINE GINDI, and ESTATE OF ISADORE GINDI, Case No. 1:20-cv-02749 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2020), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and cost. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs their lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as Chefs for the Defendants. Fuji Hana Restaurant Corp., doing business as Fuji Hana Kosher Japanese Restaurant, doing business as Fuji Hana, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 GEMINI DINER: Hernandez Sues for Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Pavon Hernandez, Alejandro Pavon, and Alexis Bravo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GEMINI DINER INC. (D/B/A GEMINI DINER), CONSTANTINOS KASSIMIS, CHRISTOS ARGYROS, and NIKOLAOS ARGYROS, Case No. 1:20-cv-04741 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The lawsuit is also brought for violations of the New York Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Plaintiffs were employed as dishwashers, delivery workers, and porters at the Defendants' restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a diner, located in New York under the name "Gemini Diner."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GROUPON INC: Defending Securities Fraud Class Suit in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a securities fraud class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 28, 2020, a plaintiff filed a securities fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois covering the time period November 4, 2019 through February 18, 2020. The plaintiff alleges that Groupon and certain of its officers made materially false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding its business, operations and prospects, specifically as it relates to reiterating its full year guidance on November 4, 2019. The Company and its officers have not yet been served with this lawsuit. Groupon said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these allegations, which we believe to be without merit." Groupon, Inc., operates online local commerce marketplaces that connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a discount in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. The Company was formerly known as ThePoint.com, Inc. and changed its name to Groupon, Inc. in October 2008. The Company was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Groupon, Inc. is a subsidiary of The Point, LLC. GSK CONSUMER: Swetz Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Benefiber Powder ---------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Swetz, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GSK Consumer Health, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-04731-NSR (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020), seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the marketing and sales of the Defendant's Benefiber Original Prebiotic Powder and Benefiber Healthy Shape Prebiotic Powder throughout the State of New York and throughout the country. The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that its Products are "100% Natural." However, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain wheat dextrin, a non-natural, synthetic ingredient. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied on the Defendant's misrepresentations that the Products are "100% Natural" when purchasing the Products. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based upon their "100% Natural" representation. Given that the Plaintiff paid a premium for the Products based on the Defendant's misrepresentations that they are "100% Natural," the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid. The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, New York General Business Law, and the consumer protection statutes of all 50 states the Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched, the Plaintiff asserts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant on behalf of herself and Class Members, who purchased the Products during the applicable statute of limitations period. The Plaintiff purchased the Products during the Class Period. GSK Consumer Health, Inc., is a corporation with its principal place of business in Warren, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com HALO BRANDED: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halo Branded Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Halo Branded Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04342-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. J. Paul Oetken. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Halo Branded provides promotional marketing products. The Company offers calendars, keychains, tags, novelty items, toys, personalized bags, drinkware, pens, stationery, and promotional apparel products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com HYNUM PROFESSIONAL: Rodriguez FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HYNUM PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. The case is captioned as LUIS RODRIGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. HYNUM PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION also known as: HYNUM LAW and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-02671-AB (E.D. Pa., June 8, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Anita B. Brody. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. Hynum specializes in family, business and healthcare law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC 1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 351-0200 Facsimile: (215) 922-3874 E-mail: rcocco@rcn.com J.C. CHRISTENSEN: Preliminary Approval of Class Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as EILEEN GREENE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. J.C. CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. and LVNV FUNDING LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01700-SCM (D.N.J.), the Parties move the Court for an order granting their joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. JC Christensen operates as debt recovery agents. LVNV Funding is a collection agency.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE C. HERSH 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 The Defendant is represented by: Joseph L Linares, Esq. WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP Three Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry St. 15h Floor Newark, NJ 07102 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Botts Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund ------------------------------------------------------------- Elena Botts, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. The Johns Hopkins University, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01335 (D. Md., May 19, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing, and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining the Johns Hopkins from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and further relief as may be just and proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Johns Hopkins University is a private research university in Baltimore, Maryland. Botts is a graduate student in the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and is enrolled for Spring Semester 2020. Johns Hopkins decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Botts claims to be deprived the benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition. USF refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 827-9980 Email: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Edward H. Skipton, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com eskipton@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Kevin Mallon, Esq. MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (646) 759-3663 E-mail: consumer.esq@outlook.com KENTUCKY: Infringes Kentuckians' Right to Vote, Nemes Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. JASON NEMES, JAMES "Rich" HOWLAND, KEN KEARNS, AARON GILLUM, THEODORE ROBERTS TYSON HERMES, and ERIK HERMES, For themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. CARL BENSINGER, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00407-CHB (W.D. Ky., June 8, 2020), is brought to vindicate the Plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and to prevent the needless deprivation of their fundamental right to vote. The Plaintiffs contend that Kentucky's failure to expand in-person voting precincts to a reasonable number infringes on these rights, and violates federal statutory law. The Plaintiffs note that the single polling location, along with its inaccessibility for the expected number of voters, who will be packed into it, both from a facility standpoint and a location standpoint, will each, separately and jointly, unduly burden Kentuckians' right to vote in the primary election on June 23, 2020. Moreover, these actions will fall more heavily on certain categories of voters, who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Plaintiff Jason Nemes is the duly elected State Representative for Kentucky's 33rd State House District. Mr. Howland has COPD, and has knee and back problems that has resulted in his qualifying for handicapped license plate status. Mr. Howland's COPD is a co-morbidity condition for COVID-19. Plaintiff Ken Kearns is over the age of 60, and resides in Fayette County, Kentucky. Mr. Kearns is currently battling a severe form of cancer, which is a co-morbidity condition for COVID-19. The Defendants include BOBBIE HOLSCLAW, JOHN AUBREY, LINDA HUBER, DON BLEVINS, KATHY WITT, MARILYN DISHMAN, DANIEL MILLER, GABRIELLE SUMME, CHUCK KORZENBORN, RICHARD SCOTT KIMMICH, SARAH ROGERS, JUSTIN CRIGLER, MICHAEL HELMIG, EMILY SHELTON, MICHAEL HOWARD, JIM LEURSEN, MIKE JANSEN, JAMES SHROER, JACK SNOGRASS, in their collective official capacities as the County Clerks, County Sheriffs, and County Board of Elections members of Jefferson, Fayette, Kenton, Boone, and Campbell Counties, for themselves and under FRCP 23, on behalf of all other county clerks and county board of elections, AND ALBERT B. CHANDLER, III, SHERRY WHITEHOUSE, GEORGE RUSSELL, KATRINA FITZGERALD, DEANNA BRANGERS, CORY SKOLNICK, DWIGHT SEARS, and JAMES LEWIS, in their official capacities as members of the State Board of Elections, and MICHAEL ADAMS, in his official capacity as the Kentucky Secretary of State, and ANDREW BESHEAR, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Wiest, Esq. CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC 25 Town Center Blvd., Suite 104 Crestview Hills, KY 41017 Telephone: 859 486-6850 Facsimile: 513/257-1895 E-mail: chris@cwiestlaw.com - and - Thomas Bruns, Esq. 4750 Ashwood Drive, Suite 200 Cincinnati, OH 45241 E-mail: tbruns@bcvalaw.com Telephone: 513 312-9890 KOTTEMANN LAW: Faces King FDCPA Class Suit in M.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kottemann Law Firm, et al. The case is captioned as Shelita King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kottemann Law Firm and Stanley Kottemann, Jr., Case No. 3:20-cv-00340-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La., June 5, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian A. Jackson. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. Kottemann Law has provided debt collection services throughout the entire state of Louisiana since 1995.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Raburn, Esq. MCCARTY & RABURN, A CONSUMER LAW FIRM, PLLC 2931 Ridge Rd., Suite 101 No. 504 Rockwall, TX 75032 Telephone: (225) 412-2777 E-mail: jonathan@geauxlaw.com LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Seeks Dismissal of Refund Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Chumney, writing for News Advance, reports that lawyers for Liberty University are asking a federal judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit demanding the school reimburse students for campus services that were largely scrapped because of the coronavirus pandemic. Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, attorneys for the school wrote in a motion to dismiss on June 15 that a group of four anonymous students who brought the lawsuit failed to identify a specific contract violation in their complaint. "Plaintiffs' claims lack the necessary factual allegations plausibly suggesting that the University committed any wrongdoing causing Plaintiffs' alleged injuries," Liberty attorneys wrote in the motion, employing a common tactic used to quash civil action. The unnamed students involved in the case have accused the school of profiting off the pandemic by refusing to offer refunds for housing, dining and other costs. Attorneys representing the students said on June 16 they remain committed to pursuing the lawsuit in court. "We are unsurprised that Liberty has elected to further shirk its legal obligations and continues to exhibit a complete lack of respect for its students and their families by reflexively moving to dismiss this complaint," Adam Levitt, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "We intend to respond to Liberty's filings in due course and will continue prosecuting this litigation to obtain justice for our clients and the other class members." It is unclear when U.S. District Court Judge Norman Moon will rule on the motion. Lawyers for Liberty declined to comment. The lawsuit, which the university has previously said is without legal merit, was filed in federal court in Lynchburg in mid-April. It argues although Liberty moved classes online and shuttered campus services in response to the public health crisis, the school kept residence halls open to justify not offering reimbursements. The university faced a flood of scrutiny after President Jerry Falwell Jr. invited students to return to campus dorms at the end of spring break--a move the lawsuit claims exposed students to "severe physical risk." Lawyers for the plaintiffs have argued Falwell's decision put students and their families in "the difficult position" of choosing whether to live on a campus that "has been effectively closed" or to "move home and forfeit the amounts they had paid for room and board and other campus fees." "Liberty's attempt to profit from the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is reprehensible and incredibly hypocritical in light of the values upon which the University says that it's based," Levitt said at the time the lawsuit was originally filed. Liberty officials have said the school is legally excused from providing refunds because in- person classes were canceled to comply with an emergency order from the state government prohibiting large gatherings. "While it's not surprising that plaintiff class action attorneys would seek to profit from a public health crisis, we don't believe this law firm or its single client speaks for the vast majority of our students," the university said in a April 13 statement, referring to the only student involved in the case at the time. In the weeks since the lawsuit was filed, three other students have joined the suit. The group is represented by a team of attorneys from DiCello Levitt Gutzler, of Chicago; Matthew S. Miller LLC, of Chicago; and MichieHamlett PLLC, of Charlottesville. The students intend to remain anonymous because of the fear of retaliation or harassment by Liberty officials, according to the complaint. Liberty is not the first institution of higher learning to be hit by a class action lawsuit demanding refunds in the wake of the pandemic. Drexel University, the University of Miami and the University of Arizona also are facing similar lawsuits. In late March, after nearly 2,000 students returned to campus, Liberty offered a $1,000 credit to students who chose to move out of their residence halls because of the pandemic. About 8,000 students live in campus housing according to the university. The university gave students two days to qualify for the credit and only offered it to graduating students and those enrolled in the upcoming fall semester. The university declined to say how many students applied for and received the credit. In contrast to Liberty, several large institutions in the state offered prorated refunds for room and board costs, including the University of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University. Still, Liberty is not alone in providing a one-time credit. Virginia Tech also gave students a fixed $1,000 rebate for housing costs, though the school also is refunding meal plans and other fees. Locally, Randolph College and Sweet Briar College distribute prorated reimbursements to students who have left campus dorms. The lawsuit argues the credits are insufficient because they do not cover the full amount of money students lost in housing and dining costs, among other fees. Housing and dining plans at Liberty generally range from about $4,300 to $5,750 per semester. Students also must pay more than $1,000 in annual fees for campus programs. The lawsuit is not seeking refunds for tuition costs. [GN] LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: Gunter Seeks Refund of Tuition & Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR GUNTER, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE; and other affiliated entities and individuals, Case No. 3:20-cv-00346-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La., June 5, 2020), seeks a refund for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at the Louisiana State University. As a result of the Defendant's response to the COVID-19, the Plaintiff asserts she did not receive the benefit and services for which they bargained for when they provided payment for tuition and various fees. On March 16, 2020, Louisiana State University canceled all in-person educational services and activities but transitioned to online-only classes. Based on these closures, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant has failed to uphold its end of the contract to provide in-person educational services and other related collegiate experiences and services. The Plaintiff also contends that despite the Defendant's failure to provide the services and experiences as bargained for, the Defendant has not offered any refund of the tuition and fees that Plaintiff and the Class had paid. LSU is the flagship university for Louisiana, supporting land, sea and space grant research.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard C. Dalton, Esq. RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC 1343 West Causeway Approach Mandeville, LA 70471 Telephone: (985) 778-2215 E-mail: rick@rickdaltonlaw.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (854) 705-9460 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com agonnelli@thesultzerlawgroup.com jfrancise@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com LUNG INSTITUTE: Rivero's Suit on Marketing Tactics Moves Forward ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katie LaGrone, writing for ABC Action News, reports that four years after Tammy Rivero first began her legal fight against the Lung Institute, the 62-year-old has reason to claim victory, albeit a small one. "I was excited. I want to relax and accomplish something for others," she told us during a zoom interview from her home in North Carolina. Rivero was responding to an order by a Hillsborough County Judge who recently certified her class action lawsuit against the Lung Institute, LLC in Tampa. The clinic offers stem cell therapy for incurable lung diseases and has, in the past, touted itself online as an "innovative leader of regenerative medicine." The class action certification now opens the door for potentially hundreds of former patients who also believe they were misled about treatments they received at the clinic. Several years ago, Rivero contacted the clinic in hopes of receiving treatment for several lung diseases. Rivero, who was a smoker, has been diagnosed with a number of lung diseases including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), black lungs and emphysema. She traveled down to Tampa for three days in 2014 for $7,500 in stem cell therapy treatments, she said, didn't work. "They said I would be able to regenerate my lungs and be able to breathe without oxygen," she said. After several weeks, Rivero said she still didn't feel any relief. "I started to get upset that someone would just take my money as sick as I was," Rivero told ABC Action News. Ben Vinson represents Rivero and said he now hopes to represent hundreds of patients from around the country who also claim the clinic knowingly sold the dying and diseased false hope through unproven stem cell therapies. Stem cell therapy is limited in use and remains largely unregulated. "It's one thing for folks to try an experimental treatment when they have no other option but it's another when the people who are offering that option know it doesn't work," Vinson said. Since 2018, Investigative Reporter Katie LaGrone has shared the stories of family members who believe they were taken for a ride by the Lung Institute's aggressive marketing tactics. In 2018, one former patient said, "It seemed like the day I had it, I started to get worse." A widow of a former patient also described her husband's condition worsening after their treatments at the Lung Institute in Tampa. These former patients and their widows accuse the Lung Institute of using aggressive and deceptive marketing tacts for stem cell treatments it knew "had no basis in medicine had no possibility of effectively treating" patients with lung disease according to lawsuit documents filed in the thirteenth judicial circuit. In court documents, the Lung Institute which has changed ownership, denies it engaged in deceptive and unfair practices and said all patients signed consent forms before procedures. In a previous statement, the clinic's spokesperson said the clinic treated thousands of satisfied customers and planned to "vigorously" fight the allegations. On [June 11], Tammy Rivero's condition has not improved. She told us she's now on six liters of oxygen per minute. "I'm alive but I can't breathe," she said. After putting a lien on her home to pay for the $7,500 treatment, she wants her money back and the satisfaction of knowing she fought back. "Stop stealing from people. You know your procedures don't work and you're taking from people who are suffering," she said. [GN] MAMMUT SPORTS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mammut Sports Group, Inc. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mammut Sports Group, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04347-LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Lorna G. Schofield. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Mammut Sports is a Swiss multinational mountaineering and trekking company headquartered in Seon, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MATCH GROUP: Answer to Amended Crutchfield Complaint Due Aug. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Match 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 company's answer to the amended complaint filed in Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C, is due on August 26, 2020. On October 3, 2019, a Match Group shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit in federal court in Texas against Match Group, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO, on behalf of a class of acquirers of Match Group securities between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019. Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C (Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division). Invoking the allegations in the FTC v. Match Group, Inc., No. 3:19:cv-02281-K (N.D. Tex.) (FTC lawsuit), the complaint alleges (i) that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company induced customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions using misleading advertisements, that the Company made it difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions, and that, as a result, the Company was likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (ii) that the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On January 6, 2020, the court approved a stipulation appointing two lead plaintiffs as well as co-lead counsel. On April 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. Match Group's answer is due on August 26, 2020. Match Group believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against them. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Kim Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Match 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 court has issued an order staying the class claims in the case, Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162, pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the appeal related to the case, Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093. On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act") by offering and charging users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint sought certification of a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount. On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the complaint. On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally more limited financial means. On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court entered judgment dismissing the action. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, and the parties thereafter briefed the appeal. On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act. Because we believe that the appellate court's reasoning was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding California precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition with the California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. The case was then returned to the trial court for further proceedings. In a related development, on June 19, 2019, in a substantially similar putative class action asserting the same substantive claims and pending in federal district court in California, the court issued an order granting final approval of a class-wide settlement, the terms of which are not material to the Company. See Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (U.S. District Court, Central District of California). On June 21, 2019, the Kim court entered judgment in accordance with its prior order. Because the approved settlement class in Kim subsumes the proposed settlement class in Candelore, the judgment in Kim would effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit. Accordingly, on July 11, 2019, two objectors to the Kim settlement, represented by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice of appeal from the Kim judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties are in the process of briefing the appeal. On September 13, 2019, Tinder filed a motion to stay the Candelore case pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the appeal of the court-approved settlement in the Kim case. On November 13, 2019, the court issued an order staying the class claims in the Candelore case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the Kim appeal. Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in the Candelore lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against it." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MDL 2953: Transfer of 12 Hernia Mesh Actions to S.D.N.Y. Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the MDL No. 2953, In re: COVIDIEN HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, the Defendants ask the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the 12 related actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The 12 Related Actions are: -- Gary Northrup v. Covidien LP, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00355 (C.D. Cal.); -- Jorden v. Covidien LP, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-05709 (N.D. Cal.); -- Dye v. COVIDIEN LP, Case No. 0:18-cv-61485 (S.D. Fla.); -- Singletary, et al. v. Covidien LP, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13108 (E.D. La.); -- Monroe v. Medtronic Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10144 (D. Mass.); -- Oliver v. Covidien Sales LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00795 (S.D. Miss.); -- SMITH v. COVIDIEN LP, Case No. 1:19-cv-11981 (D.N.J.); -- Green v. Covidien LP, Case No. 1:18-cv-02939 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Dunham, et al. v. Covidien LP, Case No. 1:19-cv-02851 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Dunham v. Covidien LP, Case No. 1:19-cv-02855 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Krulewich, et al. v. Covidien LP, Case No. 1:19-cv-02857 (S.D.N.Y.); and -- Black, et al. v. Covidien PLC, et al., Case No. 6:17-cv-06085 (W.D.N.Y.). The Defendants say that it is necessary and appropriate for the Panel to establish a fifth MDL proceeding for the copy-cat cases that allege manufacturing, design, and warning defects in the hernia mesh products of the Covidien Defendants. The Panel has already established four MDLs for hernia mesh litigation. A hernia is a common medical condition that affects more than four million people in the United States each year. Risk factors for hernias include obesity, diabetes, smoking, pregnancy, prior surgeries, and family history. Defendants Covidien LP, Covidien Holding Inc., Covidien, Inc., Covidien plc, Tyco Healthcare Group, Tyco International, Sofradim Productions SAS, Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic USA, Inc., are represented by: Loren H. Brown, Esq. Lucas P. Przymusinski, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 45th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 Facsimile: (212) 335-4501 E-mail: loren.brown@dlapiper.com lucas.przymusinski@dlapiper.com - and - Jessica C. Wilson, Esq. Katie W. Insogna, Esq. 33 Arch Street, 26th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 406-6009 Facsimile: (617) 406-6109 E-mail: jessica.wilson@dlapiper.com katie.insogna@dlapiper.com - and - Joseph G. Petrosinelli, Esq. Ana C. Reyes, Esq. Adrienne Van Winkle, Esq. Haley Wasserman, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: jpetrosinelli@wc.com areyes@wc.com avanwinkle@wc.com MEER TRADING: Rafael Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Serapio Rafael, Jose Luis Tepale, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. MEER TRADING LLC and MICHAEL KHATAMOV (AKA RAFIK KHATAMOV or MATAT KHATAMOV) (DBA AS RAFAEL DRY CLEANERS) jointly and severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-04722 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, as well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, for violations of minimum wage compensation requirements, and failure of the Defendants to comply with notice and record-keeping requirements. The Plaintiffs worked approximately 68 hours per week--twelve hours from Monday-Friday and 8 hours on Saturdays. As a result of the Defendants' actions of not paying at least minimum wage, the Plaintiffs have suffered great hardship and damages to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants required the Plaintiffs to work and never compensated them for them Work at the lawful minimum wage rate. The Plaintiffs were never provided with any wage statements, time sheets, or other documents showing the number of hours each had worked every week. The Plaintiffs were not provided with a wage notice at the time of hire or at any point thereafter. The Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record-keeping requirements of the FLSA and NYLL by failing to maintain accurate and complete timesheets and payroll records, says the complaint. Plaintiff Rafael was employed by the Defendants as a sales assistant and Plaintiff Tepale as a delivery worker. Meer Trading, LLC, owns and operates Rafael Dry Cleaners located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.FightForUrRights.com MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Strike 2nd Amended Complaint Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Millendo Therapeutics, 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 lodged a motion to strike the second amended complaint in the purported class action suit headed by Freedman Family Investments LLC. On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D. Mass.)) against OvaScience and certain former officers and directors of OvaScience alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the "Dahhan Action"). On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff, the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on July 31, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the Company answered the amended complaint. On December 9, 2019, the Court granted leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint under seal and permitted defendants to file a motion to strike the second amended complaint. On December 30, 2019, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the case pending mediation. On March 3, 2020, the parties conducted a mediation session. As the mediation was unsuccessful, the parties are resuming discovery, and the Company filed a motion to strike the second amended complaint on May 1, 2020. The Company believes that the amended complaint and the second amended complaint are without merit and intends to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. Millendo said, "A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit. Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in the development of various treatments for orphan endocrine diseases in the United States. The company is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MILLIMAN INC: Faces Iwanski Suit in Southern District of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milliman, Inc. The case is captioned as Thomas Iwanski and TVPX ARS, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Milliman, Inc., Case No. 1:20-mc-00224-GBD (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels. Milliman, Inc., provides investment advisory services. The Company offers research, management, financial, and consulting services. Milliman serves financial, government, union, education, and nonprofit organizations worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan Christopher Kirkpatrick, Esq. Seth D. Ard, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP (NYC) 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE: Byberry Seeks Coverage of COVID-19 Losses --------------------------------------------------------------- BYBERRY SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC D/B/A SNAP FITNESS, JA FITNESS 1, LLC D/B/A SNAP FITNESS, AND JA FITNESS 2, LLC D/B/A SNAP FITNESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03379 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2020), seeks a declaratory judgment that the Plaintiffs' and the other Class members' losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic are insured losses under an "All Risk" policy. The Plaintiffs allege that they were required to enroll in Snap Fitness, Inc.'s Snap Asset Protection Plan (SAPP) when they became Snap Fitness, Inc. franchisees. Their respective Franchise Agreements explicitly required them to "participate in the current and any future insurance plan we establish for the benefit of the System and pay all required premiums due thereunder." Mt. Hawley provided all the participating franchisees with identical insurance coverage under a single policy. The SAPP insurance program, which the Plaintiffs and all other franchisees were enrolled in and covered under, included property insurance, specified that the property insurance coverage provided by Mt. Hawley is an "All Risk" policy, and included Business Income coverage for the Actual Loss sustained up to at least twelve months. The Plaintiffs operate Snap Fitness Centers, which are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year gyms and health/fitness centers. Snap Fitness, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lift Brands, Inc. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. operates as an insurance company. The Company provides property and casualty insurance.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Mark Hamill, Esq. Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Mark Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com madicello@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com - and - Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq. Jeffrey P. Goodman, Esq. Samuel B. Dordick, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 E-mail: rmongeluzzi@smbb.com jgoodman@smbb.com sdordick@smbb.com - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218 Horsham, PA 19044 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com - and - Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex Brown, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff. J. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2302 E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com jbowen@bbblawllp.com jbair@bbblawllp.com fbowen@bbblawllp.com - and - Douglas Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 E-mail: Douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com NANTHEALTH INC: Case Management Conference Set for July 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- NantHealth, 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 next case management conference in Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330, is scheduled for July 31, 2020 In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to those in Deora. That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330. The parties have agreed to stay the case. The next case management conference is scheduled for July 31, 2020. The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANA OTZELBERGER, v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Case No. Case No. 20‐CV‐729 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. On May 15, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. The plaintiff has moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp. 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. NCI provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services.[CC] NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Pettway FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is captioned as ANTHONY PETTWAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02854-EGS (E.D. Pa., June 5, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. Nationwide Credit provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing, including contingency collections, first and third party, customer relationship management, attorney network, and skip program services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Ann Pirillo, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 E-mail: mpirillo@sanderslawpllc.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Rivera FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is captioned as YESHICA VIQUEZ RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02855-EGS (E.D. Pa., June 5, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. Nationwide Credit provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing, including contingency collections, first and third party, customer relationship management, attorney network, and skip program services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Ann Pirillo, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 E-mail: mpirillo@sanderslawpllc.com NEW YORK CONVENTION: Faces Warfield Suit in New York Supreme Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Convention Center Operating Corp., et al. The case is captioned as FREDERICK D. WARFIELD AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NEW YORK CONVENTION CENTER OPERATING CORP. D/B/A JACOB K. JAVITS CONVENTION CENTER, CHRISTOPHER STAMMER, CHRISTINE MCMAHON, FREEMAN DECORATING CO., FREEMAN LLC, CHRISTIAN DEMAYO, "ABC CORPORATIONS" 1-5, AND "JOHN DOE" 1-10, Case No. 20914/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Bronx Cty., June 8, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Howard H. Sherman. The lawsuit alleges violation of torts-related laws. New York Convention Center Operating Corporation is located in New York City. The Corporation's center hosts conventions, fashion shows, association meetings, and trade shows. The New York Convention Center Operating Corporation is also known as the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center located in Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C. 40 Wall Street, 61st Fl. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 747-1744 The Defendants are represented by: JACKSON LEWIS LLP 666 Third Ave., 29th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 545-4000 - and - BRYAN CAVE LLP Telephone: (212) 541-2000 ONTARIO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Long Term Care Oversight ------------------------------------------------------------- Global News reports that a Toronto-based law firm says it has notified the province of Ontario that it's launching a class-action lawsuit on behalf of long-term care residents that will allege the province was negligent in its overseeing of nursing homes. The lawsuit will allege that the province's failures in overseeing nursing homes have resulted in "widespread and avoidable illness, suffering and loss of life" during the novel coronavirus pandemic, the firm said on its website. The claim will also allege the province breached the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "For too long, the elderly and invalid have been ignored in this province," Kirk Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP, said in a statement on the firm's website. "Now that it is faced with a health crisis, Ontario's failures are on full display. It is the most vulnerable members of society, and their families, who are facing the consequences." None of the allegations have been proven in court. Global News reached out to Koskie Minsky LLP for more information but was told the firm wasn't in a position to comment further at this time. "Once the statement of claim is filed, we will have more to say," Baert said in an email. In an email to Global News, an Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care (MLTC) spokesperson said they couldn't comment on the class-action notice specifically since the matter is subject to litigation, however they indicated a number of steps the province has taken to combat COVID-19 in nursing homes. "Since Day 1 of this pandemic, we have acted aggressively to implement increasingly stringent measures to protect residents and staff at long-term care homes across the province," MLTC spokesperson Gillian Sloggett said in an emailed statement. "This extends to and well beyond issuing four emergency orders, introducing amended regulations and announcing $243 million in emergency funding for staffing, supplies and capacity." Sloggett also said the province is addressing staffing needs through its online portal that matches workers with available jobs at long-term care homes and that Ontario hospitals are deploying "rapid response" teams of health-care professionals to at-risk nursing homes. "On April 25, we amended an emergency order to allow health service providers, including hospitals, to temporarily reassign front-line staff to provide services and supports in long-term care homes," the spokesperson said. "We have conducted testing of all long-term care residents and staff, with a second round of testing underway." Sloggett said Canadian Armed Forces teams are working with long-term care facilities and that personal protective equipment needs are being met, with same-day deliveries in place. "We are launching an independent commission in July to determine the impact of COVID-19 on long-term care homes in Ontario," Sloggett said. "The challenges long-term homes have faced during this pandemic are not unique to Ontario, yet we are the first jurisdiction in North America to voluntarily and proactively launch this kind of review." The MLTC spokesperson said "every option is on the table" to improve the province's long-term care system. Long-term care homes have been at the forefront of the novel coronavirus crisis in Ontario and across the country. Of all Ontario's coronavirus-related deaths, 64.3 per cent have been among nursing home residents. Of the province's 31,544 COVID-19 cases, 16.8 per cent involve long-term care residents. Last month, the Canadian military released a troubling report that included observations of five Ontario long-term care homes that troops were sent to amid the novel coronavirus pandemic. Allegations in the military report included a "blatant disregard" for infection control measures, patient neglect and abuse, cockroach infestations and rotten food. The long-term care homes named in the report are Orchard Villa in Pickering, Altamont Care Community, Eatonville Care Centre and Hawthorne Place in Toronto, as well as Holland Christian Homes' Grace Manor in Brampton. Global News previously reviewed past inspection reports of the five long-term care facilities and found that many concerns raised by Canadian Forces members were similar to conditions that were reported at the homes months before the novel coronavirus pandemic started. At the time the military report was released, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said it took the military going into the homes and reporting what they observed before he realized how bad things were. He's also said inspectors refused to go into long-term care homes in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic because they feared for their safety, which prompted the government to call in the military. The Ontario Public Service Employees Union refuted Ford's statement, saying long-term care ministry managers told workers not to enter the province's nursing homes. When the Ontario government received the military report, it launched an investigation into its findings. Ontario's patient ombudsman is also investigating experiences at long-term care homes with coronavirus outbreaks. Since the coronavirus pandemic started, several class-action lawsuits have been filed against long-term care homes and operators in Ontario, including Altamont Care Community, owned by Sienna Senior Living, as well as Revera Inc. [GN] PECKHAM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Wilson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Wilson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PECKHAM, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00565 (W.D. Mich., June 19, 2020), arises out of the Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its Agents for all mandatory pre- and mid-shift off-the-clock work, according to the complaint. The Agents routinely worked 40 hours or more per week, before accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the-clock work is included, even those Agents, who were scheduled and paid for only 40 hours per week, actually worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime rate for hours worked over 40 per week. The Defendant's practice of failing to compensate its Agents for all work and failing to compensate the Plaintiff at the appropriate overtime rate for overtime hours worked, violated the Agents' rights under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working for the Defendant as an hourly call center agent in June 1999. Peckham is "one of the largest vocational community rehabilitation programs in the state of Michigan. Peckham's clients are a diverse group from many partnering agencies."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq. KREIS, ENDERLE, HUDGINS, & BOROSO, P.C. 8225 Moorsbridge PO Box 4010 Kalamazoo, MI 49003 Phone: (269) 324-3000 Email: jyoung@kehb.com tcedoz@kehb.com PERSONNEL STAFFING: Court Finds Inadequate Reps in Pruitt Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Mersol, writing for Baker & Hostetler LLP, wrote an article on the Illinois District Court's certification denial of a discrimination action due to problematic class representatives. A key premise of a class action is that a court can, in essence, review the merits of the class representative's claims and apply the result of that review across the class as a whole. This concept is most readily found in Rule 23(a)(2) (commonality), (a)(3)(typicality) and (a)(4)(adequacy of representation), but it also finds its way into Rule 23(b)(3) in the form of predominance and superiority. Most challenges to class status focus on issues such as commonality and predominance, but challenges based on Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy of representation are less common. A recent case from the Northern District of Illinois, however, discusses a number of issues relating to the adequacy of the putative class representatives. In Pruitt v. Personnel Staffing Group, LLC d/b/a MVP, Case No. 16-cv-5079 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2020), the two plaintiffs brought a putative class action against a staffing company and several of its clients, contending that they and the proposed class members were denied job assignments on the basis of race. Following a tortuous procedural history, the defendants moved the court to deny certification, relying heavily on the adequacy of representation of the named plaintiffs under Rule 23(a)(4). The court reviewed in detail the arguments made by both sides, which were considerable in number, among them being the defendant's argument that because the lead plaintiffs had significant criminal records, at a minimum their credibility was in doubt and they were therefore inadequate representatives. The court noted the sparse authority on this point, but largely rejected the argument because of the age of the convictions and the lack of any connection to the merits of the case. The court also rejected various technical defenses such as the effect of the plaintiffs' bankruptcies, the timing of their efforts to obtain job assignments and their participation in other class actions against the employer. The court did, however, find three issues problematic. First, neither of the two named plaintiffs knew much about the case or participated meaningfully in its prosecution. Second, one in particular appeared to have given incorrect answers in discovery and was evasive in his deposition. In one deposition exchange, he was asked to explain why he had not produced a relevant document and responded, "I'm actually not interested in elaboration." Third, the court found that the other putative class representative was at least arguably subject to a statute of limitations defense that did not apply to the class as a whole. Based on these reasons, the court denied class certification, leaving the two remaining plaintiffs to decide whether they wished to pursue their claims individually. The Pruitt decision is worthwhile reading due to its analysis of multiple challenges to the adequacy of the putative class representatives. The bottom line: Proposed class representatives who fail to cooperate in the litigation process may jeopardize certification. About BakerHostetler Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With six core practice groups — Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor and Employment, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has nearly 1,000 lawyers located coast to coast. For more information, visit bakerlaw.com. [GN] PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Newman Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KENNETH NEWMAN, Individually and Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., Case No. 7:19-cv-00244-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification for a Fair Labor Standards Act class consisting of: "all Inspectors who worked for, or on behalf of, Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., who were paid a day rate at any time during the last three years" The Plaintiff alleges that Plains misclassified its Inspectors as exempt to avoid paying them overtime wages required under federal law. He adds that Plains instead maintained a uniform pay practice where these workers received a day rate without any overtime compensation. This practice is a clear per se violation of the FLSA, he contends. Plains' owns and operates a network of pipeline transportation, terminals, storage and gathering assets in key crude oil and NGL producing basins, transportation corridors, and at major market hubs in the United States and Canada.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON D UNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com POST HOLDINGS: Still Faces Egg Products Suit by Opt-Out Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Michael Foods, Inc. (MFI) continues to defend a class action suit by opt-out plaintiffs related to egg products. In late 2008 and early 2009, approximately 22 class action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. ("MFI"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg products and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The cases involved three plaintiff groups: (i) a nationwide class of direct purchasers of shell eggs (the "direct purchaser class"); (ii) individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out plaintiffs"); and (iii) indirect purchasers of shell eggs ("indirect purchaser plaintiffs"). Resolution of claims: To date, MFI has resolved the following claims, including all class claims: (i) in December 2016, MFI settled all claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser class for a payment of $75.0 million, which was approved by the district court in December 2017; (ii) in January 2017, MFI settled all claims asserted against it by opt-out plaintiffs related to shell egg purchases on confidential terms; (iii) in June 2018, MFI settled all claims asserted against it by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms; and (iv) between June 2019 and September 2019, MFI individually settled on confidential terms egg product opt-out claims asserted against it by four separate opt-out plaintiffs. MFI has at all times denied liability in this matter, and no settlement contains any admission of liability by MFI. Remaining portion of the cases: MFI remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek damages based on purchases of egg products by three opt-out plaintiffs. The district court had granted summary judgment precluding any claims for egg products purchases by such opt-out plaintiffs, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded these claims for further pre-trial proceedings. Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims, which was denied in June 2019. The remaining opt-out plaintiffs have not yet been assigned trial dates. Although the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the MFI settlements described above, the remaining portion of the cases could still result in a material adverse outcome. Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Post Consumer Brands, Weetabix, Refrigerated Food, and Active Nutrition segments. The company was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. RELIASTAR LIFE: Faces Iacono Insurance Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York. The case is captioned as Leonard Iacono, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York; Pat Posts 1-10; and ABC Corps. 1-10 (names being fictitious and unknown), Case No. 2:20-cv-02545-GRB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gary R. Brown. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Insurance Contract-related laws. Reliastar operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Scott Bauchner, Esq. Seth Michael Rosenstein, Esq. ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, P.C. 365 Rifle Camp Road Woodland Park, NJ 07424 Telephone: (973) 247-9000 Facsimile: (973) 247-9199 E-mail: jb@ansellgrimm.com smr@ansellgrimm.com ROYAL BANK: Foreign Exchange Price Fixing Class Action Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Millar, Esq. -- jmillar@agmlawyers.com -- of Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in his decision released earlier this Spring, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell certified a class action in Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada claiming $1.0 Billion in damages against several large banks, including Credit Suisse Group AG; Deutsche Bank AG; the Royal Bank of Canada; and the Toronto Dominion Bank, relating to an alleged conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market. The claim alleged that, between 2003 and 2013, the Defendant banks, who controlled approximately 65% of the FX market trading in Canadian currency, conspired to fix the price of FX instruments as well as other collusive conduct such as manipulating FX Spot Prices which may have had an impact on over $1.0 Quadrillion worth of trades. FX Market The FX Market, which operates 24 hours a day around the world, generally involved "over-the-counter" transactions between purchasers and one of the Defendants acting as a dealer. The dealer would quote a price at which it would buy a particular currency and the price it would sell a particular currency in exchange for a second currency. If accepted, the dealer earns revenue equal to the difference between the purchase price and the selling price, but also accepts the risk that a change in currency price may occur before the order may be filled. In effect, the dealer receives a commission for the service of providing liquidity and assuming risk for purchasers. The class action alleges that the Defendants and their agents, through electronic communication platforms and online chatrooms, communicated directly with each other to coordinate the prices offered to customers trading in the FX Market and to manipulate FX rates. Among other allegations, the Defendants are alleged to have also coordinated trading in particular currencies to benefit co-conspirators. This allegedly had a direct impact on the prices of FX instruments traded on capital markets. Each of the Defendants has been subject to regulatory investigation and proceedings for their role in these chatrooms. Credit Suisse entered into a consent order with the New York State Department of Financial Services. The US Federal Reserve issued a Cease and Desist Order against Deutsche Bank. Both RBC and TD entered into settlement agreements with the Ontario Securities Commission. Certification Criteria Justice Perell relied on the five-part test necessary to certify a class proceeding under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. Justice Perell noted that "For an action to be certified as a class proceeding, there must be a cause of action shared by an identifiable class from which common issues arise that can be resolved in a fair, efficient, and manageable way that will advance the proceeding and achieve access to justice, judicial economy, and the modification of behaviour of wrongdoers." Of particular interest was Justice Perell's discussion of the identifiable class criteria. The plaintiffs had originally sought to include three classes in the Class Definition: (a) Direct Purchasers from Defendant Class Members; (b) Direct Purchasers from non-Defendant Class Members; and (c) Investor Class Members. Justice Perell ultimately limited the class to only Direct Purchasers from Defendant Class Members. The remaining two classes were ultimately excluded from the Class Definition due, in part to the episodic nature of the conspiracy, the remoteness of the class members' claims, and the difficulty in self-identifying these class members. There was no way to determine whether the purchases from Non-Defendants FX market participants or of mutual funds was affected by unrelated illegal transactions. Having limited the class definition, Justice Perell determined that the proceeding met all the remaining criteria and certified it as a class action. The further progress of this class action is worth watching, if only based on the extent of the claimed damages. Given the amounts at stake, both parties may well decide to appeal the decision and the same issues may shortly end up before the Ontario Court of Appeal. However, given the tendency for large price-fixing class actions to settle, in the event that there is no successful appeal, there may be a large settlement on the horizon. [GN] SDI INTERNATIONAL: Sloben Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Sloben, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SDI INTERNATIONAL CORP., Case No. 7:20-cv-04717 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The Plaintiff began her employment working directly for the Defendant as a Video Specialist in Armonk, New York, in 2012. The Defendant is a workforce and business solutions provider supplying staffing services to third-party entities. In January 2015, IBM ceased solely employing Video Specialists and required them to be staffed by third-party staffing agencies in order to continue to work at IBM. IBM provided Video Specialists with a list of staffing agencies to choose from. The Plaintiff selected the Defendant as her staffing agency. The Defendant requires the Contract Employees to record their time worked on its website portal, which requires approval by the third-party entity. The Plaintiff alleges that her reported hours worked, however, were not always approved before the payroll deadline. As a result, the Defendant did not always pay her earned and due wages on her regularly scheduled payday, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, the Plaintiff asserts. She adds that the Defendant subjects the Contract Employees to a "salary/bonus" pay scheme whereby it deprives the Contract Employees of the overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. Sara Wyn Kane, Esq. Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGININI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248 SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: July 22 Fairness Hearing in Blackfish Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SeaWorld Entertainment, 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 court hearing to consider fairness of the settlement in a class action suit related to the film Blackfish is currently scheduled for July 22, 2020. On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 17, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspædagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, "Plaintiffs'), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its directors, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that the film Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the time of each public statement. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint, which, among other things, no longer names the Company's Board or underwriters as defendants. On February 11, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement relating to this case. The proposed settlement, which is subject to certain conditions, including court approval, requires the Company to pay $65.0 million for claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the costs of administration and legal fees and expenses. The proposed settlement does not include or constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant. There can be no assurance that the proposed settlement agreement will be approved by the court. The fairness hearing for court approval of the settlement is currently scheduled for July 22, 2020. SeaWorld said, "During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company recorded $32.1 million of legal settlement charges, net of insurance recoveries, related to this case, which was paid during the three months ended March 31, 2020." SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Orlando, Florida. SOUTHERN THERAPY: Refuses to Pay Proper OT Pay, Bailey Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER BAILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN THERAPY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02445-ODE (N.D. Ga., June 8, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed and/or refused to pay the proper overtime pay for time worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that the management directed and/or was aware of employees not being properly compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week and, therefore, willfully violated the FLSA. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a physical therapist from November 6, 2013, to the present. Southern Therapy is a therapist-owned rehabilitation company that has served the citizens of West Georgia and East Alabama for over 30 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Loren, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A. 1776 N. Pine Island Rd, Suite 1224 Plantation, FL 33322 Telephone: (954) 585-4878 Facsimile: (954) 585-4886 E-Mail: jloren@goldbergloren.com SWAN SURFACES: Barton Slams Capturing/Retaining Biometrics Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Barton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Swan Surfaces, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00499, (S.D. Ill., May 29, 2020), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, as well as statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Barton worked for Swan Surfaces and was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. She alleges that Swan Surfaces improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data to a third-party company without informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel.: (312) 726-1092 Fax: (312) 726-1093 Email: wsweetnam@keoghlaw.com TCA LOGISTICS: Castro Sues Over Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TCA Logistics Corp. and Thomas Eletto, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02004, (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action under New York labor laws. TCA operates distribution facilities in New York including a warehouse in Hauppauge, New York where Castro worked as a driver. TCA allegedly classified its delivery drivers as independent contractors who were paid a lump-sum per day to perform their work despite rendering in excess of 40 hours per work week. Defendant failed to accurately track or record all of the actual hours worked and failed to provide Castro with a way to accurately record the hours they actually worked, asserts the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Zach Rubin, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com zrubin@llrlaw.com TILE SHOP: Trial in Delaware State Court Suit to Begin July 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that trial in the consolidated class action suit pending before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is scheduled to begin on July 13, 2020. On November 5, 2019, a class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and its directors by a purported stockholder of the Company, K-Bar Holdings LLC. On November 7, 2019, a similar complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company, Wynnefield Capital, Inc., represented by the same plaintiffs' law firm which filed the K-Bar Holdings lawsuit. On November 13, 2019, the two cases were consolidated. The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with, among other things, the Company's decision to delist from Nasdaq and deregister its common stock under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and directors’ purchases of common stock. The complaints include derivative claims and seek injunctive relief to prevent the Company from deregistering its common stock, injunctive relief to prevent additional stock purchases, and unspecified damages. The Court entered a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on November 8, 2019, which prohibits the Company from filing a Form 15 to complete the proposed deregistration and bars additional stock purchases by the defendant directors. The case is currently set for a trial beginning on July 13, 2020. The Company plans to continue to contest the litigation vigorously. Tile Shop said, "The individual defendants in the case have asserted a right to indemnification from the Company, for which the Company has Director and Officer Liability Insurance policies that may provide coverage for certain defense costs and litigation expenses in addition to amounts the Court could award if plaintiffs were to prevail." Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of manufactured and natural stone tiles, setting and maintenance materials, and related accessories in the United States. The company is based in Plymouth, Minnesota. TRANS WORLD: $400,000 Settlement Reached in Spack Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2020, for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that Company has reached a preliminary settlement with the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action suit entitled, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. was originally filed in the District of New Jersey, April 2017. The Spack Action alleges that the Company misclassified Store Managers ("SMs") as exempt nationwide. It also alleges that Trans World improperly calculated overtime for Senior Assistant Managers ("SAMs") nationwide, and that both SMs and SAMs worked "off-the-clock." It also alleges violations of New Jersey and Pennsylvania State Law with respect to calculating overtime for SAMs. A second lawsuit, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in the Northern District of New York, May 2017 (the "Roper Action"). The Roper Action also asserts a nationwide misclassification claim on behalf of SMs. Both actions were consolidated into the Northern District of New York, with the Spack Action being the lead case. The Company has reached a preliminary settlement with the plaintiffs for both store manager class actions. The Company reserved $0.4 million for the settlement as of February 2, 2020. Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment products. The company operates in two segments, For Your Entertainment (fye) and etailz. The fye segment offers trend, video, music, electronics, and related products, as well as used compact discs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and video games through its retail stores and e-commerce sites. Trans World Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Albany, New York. TRANS WORLD: Suit Over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2020, for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit in Massachusetts related to its Loyalty Memberships and Magazine Subscriptions. On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated magazine subscriptions. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's "negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers' consent. The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions, and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf. On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit. On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed lawsuit filed a similar punitive class action in Massachusetts state court (Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden Cty.), based on the same allegations, but this time seeking to represent only a class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were charged for VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine subscriptions. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and, if the new case is not dismissed in full, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment products. The company operates in two segments, For Your Entertainment (fye) and etailz. The fye segment offers trend, video, music, electronics, and related products, as well as used compact discs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and video games through its retail stores and e-commerce sites. Trans World Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Albany, New York. U.S. XPRESS: Faces Mears Suit in E.D. Tenn. Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN MEARS and DAISY SHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00145-PLR-CHS (E.D. Tenn., June 5, 2020), is brought against USX for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of employees, job applicants and others in USX's computer systems. On April 9, 2020, USX sent letters to the Plaintiffs along with employees, job applicants and others, who had occasion to provide their PII to USX and whose information had been compromised and exfiltrated by unauthorized third parties. The letter informed recipients that a USX employee fell for a phishing campaign, the result of which was a third party acquiring unauthorized access to USX computer systems. Thereafter, the unauthorized third party was able to view, access and exfiltrate sensitive PII stored in USX's systems. The PII included names, Social Security numbers and driver license numbers (Data Breach), says the complaint. USX acknowledged that the Breach was the result of one of its employees falling for a common place phishing attack--one of the oldest, well known, and easiest to prevent cyber incursions. Mr. Mears is neither an employee, nor a customer of USX. Indeed, his only relationship to USX is as a current litigant against the Company. In the course of that litigation, USX requested and acquired documents that contained Mr. Mears' sensitive PII. Ms. Shaffer is neither an employee nor a customer of USX. Ms. Shaffer applied to drive for USX. As part of that application process, and to be considered for a job, she was required to provide USX her name, Social Security number and other PII. USX is the fifth-largest asset-based truckload carrier by revenue in the United States, consisting of 7,000 tractors and 15,500 trailers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq. Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca Kester, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN-NASHVILLE, PLLC 810 Broadway, Suite 105 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 490-0943 E-mail: kbarnett@forthepeople.com jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com fketster@ForThePeople.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Firm Files Additional Class Suits in Australia ----------------------------------------------------------------- Uber Technologies, 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 same Australian law firm that initiated a class action suit in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, has commenced three additional class action lawsuits alleging the same claim. In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in the taxi, hire-car, and limousine industries. The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against transport legislation by UberX Drivers in Australia. The claim alleges, in effect, that these operations caused loss and damage to the class representative and class members, including lost income and decreased value of certain taxi licenses. In March and April 2020, the same Australian law firm filed three additional class action lawsuits alleging the same claim. Uber said, "We deny these allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit." Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary technology applications that enable independent providers of ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies, Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. UBIQUITI INC: Accord in NY Securities Suit Wins Final Okay ---------------------------------------------------------- Ubiquiti 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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted final approval of the settlement in a consolidated securities class action suit and dismissed the Consolidated Class Action with prejudice. On February 21, 2018, a purported class action, captioned Paul Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01620 (the "Vanderheiden Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The Vanderheiden Action complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements, including purported overstatements of the Company's online community user engagement metrics and accounts receivable. On February 28, 2018 and March 13, 2018, substantially similar purported class actions, captioned Xiya Qian v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01841 (the "Qian Action") and John Kho v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-02242 (the "Kho Action", together with the Vanderheiden Action and the Qian Action, the "Class Actions"), respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 24, 2018, the Court consolidated the Class Actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel (the "Consolidated Class Action"). Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 24, 2018. On March 21, 2019, Defendants informed the Court that they were prepared to move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint but that, consistent with the Court’s individual practices, they would refrain from filing that motion pending receipt of further guidance from the Court. On October 16, 2019, the parties in the Consolidated Class Action reached an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Class Action (the "Settlement"). The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on March 27, 2020, dismissing the Consolidated Class Action with prejudice. The Settlement, which included an award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs' counsel, was fully funded by certain of the Company's insurers. Ubiquiti Inc. develops technology platforms for high-capacity distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and consumer electronics for professional, home and personal use. The company categorizes its solutions in to three main categories: high performance networking technology for service providers, enterprises and consumers. The company targets the services providers and enterprise markets through its highly engaged community of service providers, distributors, value added resellers, systems integrators and corporate IT professionals, which the company refers to as the Ubiquiti Community. The company is based in New York, New York. VAULTAGE SOLUTION: To Face Class-Action Lawsuit Over '$17M Fraud' ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Drake, writing for Coin Geek, reports that investors of digital currency scheme VaultAge Solution are set to have their day in court, after preparing a lawsuit against the company's former CEO and owner in a bid to recover 277 million rands (approx. US$17 million). The South African based scheme has been the subject of investor fury in recent months, after CEO and owner Willie Breedt vanished owing millions to investors. According to reports in local press, VaultAge investor Annette Veldsman and her attorney Gordon Kayser of Pretoria-based GTA Kayser Attorney are in discussions with advocates about filing the class action against VaultAge and the former CEO. Veldsman said the filing was imminent: "We aim to have the application where we will seek relief from the court, before the High Court at the end of the week." It is thought as many as 2,000 investors may have been taken in by VaultAge with its digital currency investment scheme, with assurance to purchase digital currencies through the program. The scheme has since closed, with Breedt still at large—and investors still significantly out of pocket. Fears were raised after Breedt cut contact with investors and fled to Mozambique in December, in what was described as "a holiday." The following month, VaultAge offices were shut down, and investors sent an email promising to repay the money they are due. Breedt then went on to tell local press he would repay the funds by May 30, but has so far been silent on the matter. The lawsuit will run simultaneously with a criminal case against Breedt on allegations of forgery concerning a proof of payment document sent to one particular investor. The case is only the latest alleged scam to afflict investors in the digital currency space, with instances of fraud reportedly on the rise across the world. [GN] VIMEO INC: Illinois Court Rejects Arbitration in Acaley BIPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Wozniak and Mark Wallin of Barnes & Thornburg LLP wrote on Lexology that an Illinois federal court recently denied a motion to compel individual arbitration of a class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In Acaley v. Vimeo Inc., the plaintiff brought a putative BIPA class action against the maker of user-created video software, alleging the defendant "violated BIPA by using facial recognition technology to scan, collect, and store his and other users' face geometries from videos and photographs they uploaded to [the defendant's website/app] without satisfying [BIPA's] requirements." The defendant sought to stay the lawsuit and to compel individual arbitration of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff resisted the defendant's motion, contending both that no agreement to arbitrate was formed, and that the BIPA suit was beyond the arbitration agreement's scope, because it was excluded as one of the specific exceptions to the agreement. The district court disagreed with the former, but agreed with the latter, and denied the motion to compel arbitration. Arbitration Agreement Formation The parties disputed whether a binding arbitration agreement had been made at all. As the court explained, "arbitration is a matter of contract." The parties agreed that the defendant's terms of service included an arbitration clause, but disputed whether the plaintiff had assented to the terms of service. After a "fact-intensive inquiry," the court found that the plaintiff "received reasonable notice on at least two occasions" that he was consenting to the terms of service, and specifically noted that reasonable notice of an agreement can be given "even if [the website] does not provide an affirmative statement giving such notice on every page." Scope of Arbitration Agreement As the court explained, "any doubt concerning the scope of the arbitration clause is resolved in favor of arbitration," and arbitration should be compelled "unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute." At issue was the "Exceptions to Arbitration" clause, which exempted from arbitration, among other claims, "any Claim related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, invasion of privacy or unauthorized use." The court explained (and the defendant did not contest) that "BIPA claims generally relate to or arise from invasion of privacy." The court also noted "[f]ederal district courts, including this Court, also have described the Illinois legislature as creating a 'legal right to privacy' in BIPA and have characterized lawsuits brought under BIPA as '[i]nvasion of privacy lawsuits.'" The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the exclusion only applied to "common-law tort claims of invasion of privacy, not other sorts of invasion-of-privacy claims," stating that "this argument falls flat." Regarding the defendant's inventive argument that "the phrase 'invasion of privacy'" must be narrowly interpreted because the word "'invasion' bespeaks an aggressive, even extreme act that far exceeds mere non-compliance with regulatory law," the court explained that the Illinois Supreme Court has "used the word 'invasion' to describe BIPA violations." Ultimately, the court concluded that the terms of service "are not susceptible of a reading" that the arbitration agreement covered the BIPA claim. The wave of BIPA class actions shows no sign of abating, and Illinois naturally remains the epicenter of these cases. Arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers can be a useful tool for defeating BIPA class actions. However, the Vimeo case serves as a reminder that at its core, BIPA is a privacy statute. In tandem with ensuring that BIPA-compliant policies and practices are in place, careful attention must be paid to the terms of any arbitration agreement, to be sure those arbitration agreements achieve their intended goals. This court's decision also lends support to the argument that BIPA claims are subject to Illinois' one-year limitation period for privacy causes of action. [GN] WALTERS WEDDING: Couple Files Class Action Over Refund ------------------------------------------------------ Star-Telegram reports that a North Texas couple has filed a class-action lawsuit against the owners of a chapel in The Colony after being forced to cancel their wedding because of the coronavirus pandemic. Rex Simmons and Brianna Conn, of Plano, were forced to cancel their July 18 wedding at the Chapel at Ana Villa, and their attempts to reschedule the event or receive a refund on their deposit of more than $12,000 have been thwarted, according to the lawsuit. The owners Keith and Sarah Walters of Walters Wedding Estates, which includes multiple chapels and event venues in Texas, have refused to consider arranging an alternate date for the wedding, the lawsuit alleges. "We know that this company's unreasonable and unlawful stance has affected many other couples who are faced with the same dilemma," Dallas attorney Mark Ticer said in a release. "We're seeking class action status under Texas law on behalf of all those couples who have not or will not be able to have the wedding they contracted for and the wedding they have paid for with the company." Walters Wedding Estates says the couple did not need to cancel the wedding because the venue was able to handle it safely and within the Gov. Greg Abbott's pandemic guidelines. [GN] WELLESLEY BANCORP: Parshall Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Wellesley Bancorp, 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 plaintiff in Parshall v. Fontaine et al., Case No. 24-C-20-001127, has agreed that the Form 8-K filed by the company on March 6, 2020 mooted his disclosure claims, and accordingly agreed to voluntarily dismiss the complaint. On December 5, 2019, Cambridge Bancorp ("Cambridge") and Wellesley Bancorp, Inc. issued a joint press release announcing that Cambridge and the Company have entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which the Company will merge with and into Cambridge, with Cambridge as the surviving entity (the "Merger"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, which has been approved by the boards of directors and stockholders of both companies, stockholders of the Company will receive 0.580 shares of Cambridge common stock for each share of Wellesley common stock. On February 25, 2020, one purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative derivative and class action lawsuit against the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, Wellesley Bank, Cambridge and Cambridge Trust Company in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Wellesley stockholders, and derivatively on behalf of the Company, captioned Parshall v. Fontaine et al., Case No. 24-C-20-001127 (the "Merger Litigation"). The plaintiff generally alleged, among other things, that the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary obligations by approving the Merger Agreement and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 4, 2020 and first mailed to the Company's stockholders on February 6, 2020 contained materially incomplete disclosures about the merger. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, rescission of the merger or rescissory damages, other unspecified damages, and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On March 6, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC a Current Report on Form 8-K making additional disclosures to supplement the disclosures in the allegedly misleading proxy statement as set forth in the complaint. The plaintiff agreed that the Form 8-K mooted his disclosure claims, and accordingly agreed to voluntarily dismiss the complaint. Wellesley Bancorp, Inc. is a Maryland corporation incorporated in 2011. It serves as the parent holding company of Wellesley Bank (the "Bank"), a Massachusetts chartered stock co-operative bank, established in 1911, which completed its conversion from the mutual to the stock form of ownership in January 2012. The company is based in Wellesley, Massachusetts. WESTJET AIRLINES: Lupien Suit Seeks Refunds for Canceled Flights ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAWATTIE SINGH LUPIEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WESTJET AIRLINES LTD., Case No. 08481648 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., June 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendant has failed to provide refunds for canceled flights to customers due to the large quantity of cancellations resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff contends that as part of each ticket purchase, the Defendant promises to customers, through the terms of its Tariff, that in the event of an involuntary cancellation, customers are entitled to a full cash refund. The World Health Organization declared the Covid-19 virus a public health emergency on January 30, 2020. The WHO declared Covid-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. In response, state and local governments began issuing shelter-in-place orders, many of which specifically prohibited non-essential travel, including air travel, due to the risk of further spread of the Covid-19 virus. The Plaintiff purchased four tickets for a flight from Miami, Florida, to London, United Kingdom, scheduled to depart on June 2, 2020. The Plaintiff paid $2,449.60 for her tickets, including baggage fees. Westjet is a major Canadian airline company that carried approximately 25.49 million passengers in 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Mussman, Esq. Brian Ku, Esq. KU & MUSSMAN, P.A. 18501 Pines Boulevard, Suite 209-A Pembroke Pines, FL 33029 Telephone: 305 891-1322 Facsimile: 305 891-4512 E-mail: louis@kumussman.com brian@kumussman.com - and - Allen Carney, Esq. Jake Windley, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 501 312-8500 Facsimile: 501 312-8505 E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com jwindley@cbplaw.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation continues to face lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in, or accompanying, its products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in, or accompanying, our products. We are a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The claims are similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us for immaterial amounts. We cannot provide any assurances that any pending or future matters will be resolved in the same manner as previous lawsuits." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/PS6l5S ********* 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 ***