/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200803.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 3, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 154 Headlines 6G MANAGEMENT: Collram Sues in D. Utah Alleging Violation of FLSA AIM DIRECTIONAL: Hargrave FLSA Suit Moved From S.D. to W.D. Texas ALLERGAN INC: Faces Napier Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN INC: Faces Skaggs Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN INC: Faces Tedford Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN INC: Faces Triplett Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN INC: Faces Wellborn Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Clark Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Gentry Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Hartfield Suit Over Faulty BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Peterson Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLERGAN PLC: Faces West Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ALLIED NEVADA: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 16 AMERICAN FEDERATION: Ohio Public Employees Win Class Suit Deal AMP: Financial Advisers in Australia to File Class Action AMYRIS INC: Sabatini Challenges Lacking Proxy for Aug. 14 Meeting ANDERSON UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: Appeals Court Rejects Apple TV Consumer Class Action ARDENT LEISURE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Dreamworld ASENDIA USA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Terminal Class Action Cannot Proceed, Court Says ATLAS BUILDERS: Richardson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA AURORA, CO: Suit filed v. Police Over McClain Vigil AUSTRALIA: PFAS Issues Still Unresolved Despite Settlement BAER & TIMBERLAKE: Lewandowski Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid BALEARIA CARIBBEAN: Dimond Kaplan Files Class Suit Over Refunds BASF SE: Agrees to Settle Talc Class Action Lawsuit for $72 Mil. BAYER AG: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 14 Deadline BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Gross Law Files Securities Class Action BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: 3rd Cir. Revives Class Action Odor Lawsuit BHP: Says UK Class Action Over Brazil Dam Failure "Pointless" BOYD GAMING: James Seeks to Certify 2 Classes in Tip Credit Suit BROOKDALE SENIOR: Rejuso Appeals Callahan Suit Ruling to 9th Cir. BROOKDALE SENIOR: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline BRUNSWICK BOWLING: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation BUDDI US LLC: S.C. Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. California C.L. KNOX: Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment Against Workers CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Vaught Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid CARNIVAL CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Files Securities Class Action CARNIVAL PLC: Faces Class Action Over Covid-19 Outbreak CARSON CITY, MI: Hurst Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 18 Motion Deadline CENTENE CORP: Oct. 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set in Sanchez CHARLESTON SOUTHERN: Taylor Suit Moved to Dist. of South Carolina CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kaskela Law Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline CHICAGO, IL: Settles Class Action Over Impounded Vehicles CHICAGO, IL: Settles Motorists' Class Action for $4.95 Million CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of Aug. 17 Bid Deadline COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Amer Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid COLLECTO INC: Hatcher Seeks to Certify Delaware Borrowers Class COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CONNECTICUT: Board Appeals Order in A.R. IDEA Suit to 2nd Cir. CONNECTICUT: Corrigan COVID-19 Class Action Settlement Not Enough CSA TRAVEL: Sued for Refusing to Refund Cancelled Booking DALLAS, TX: Prelim. Injunction Denied in Sanchez Inmates Suit DARTMOUTH UNIVERSITY: Harassment Suit Deal Gets Final Approval DAVIS WRIGHT: Anderson Securities Suit Removed to Dist. of Oregon DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Rowan Suit Over Manipulation of Futures EIGHT ORANGES: Faces Wu Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ELANCO ANIMAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Class Action ENERGY RECOVERY: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action ENERGY RECOVERY: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action ENERGY RECOVERY: Gross Law Files Securities Class Action ENERGY RECOVERY: Holzer & Holzer Announces Securities Class Action ENERGY RECOVERY: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Class Action ENHANCED RECOVERY: Espinal Class Certification Bid Denied ENPHASE ENERGY: Gross Law Reminds of Securities Class Action ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline EQUINOR ENERGY: Nelson Files Breach of Contract Suit in D.N.D. ERIE INSURANCE: Three Little Pigs Sues Over Failure to Pay Losses FACEBOOK INC: Bumps Up Offer to $650MM to Settle Class Action FACEBOOK INC: Faces Lawsuit Amid Sexual Misconduct Denunciations FACEBOOK INC: Quebec Man Seeks to Launch Class Action FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Hotinger Suit Over Violations of Labor Code FEDERAL NATIONAL: Montilla Appeals D.R.I. Ruling to First Circuit FLORIDA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Dismissal of Fee Refunds Class Action FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline FOSTERS FREEZE: Desalvo Files ADA Class Suit in C.D. California GAIN CAPITAL: Faces Zhang Suit Over Deceptive Futures Contracts GEICO CASUALTY: Sued by Siegal for Profiting From COVID-19 Crisis GENESIS DIGITAL: Winegard Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site GEO GROUP: Kehoe Law Firm Reminds of September 8 Deadline GLA COLLECTION: Faces Shoemaker Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection GOOGLE LLC: Killi Referenced in Recent Privacy Class Action GRACO: Averts Class Action Over Recalled Sleepers GRAND CANYON: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation GREEN APPLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, Arellano Alleges GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Sheet Metal Sues Over Inflated Stock Price HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit HAMILTON BEACH: Rosen Global Reminds Investors of Class Action HAMILTON CO: Court Partly Approves Settlement in Zako FLSA Suit HAMILTON JACOBS: McCrae Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina HERBAL HEALING: Baker Sues in D. Vermont Alleging TCPA Violation HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Deadline IDEANOMICS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 27 Deadline INSPERITY INC: Barbuto & Johansson Files Securities Class Action INSPERITY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action INSPERITY INC: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action INSPERITY INC: Gainey McKenna Alerts of Class Action Suit INSPERITY INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action INSPERITY INC: Holzer & Holzer Announces Class Action Filing INSPERITY INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Filing INSPERITY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 21 Plaintiff Deadline INSPERITY INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action INSPERITY INC: Rigrodsky & Long Alerts of Class Action Suit INSPERITY INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action INSYS THERAPEUTICS: October 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline J2 GLOBAL: Kaskela Law Reminds of Reminds of Sept. 8 Deadline J2 GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline JACKSON, MS: Jackson Police Officers to File Discrimination Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Unbehagen Sues to Obtain Fees Owed to PPP Agents KIDZ KORNER: Mendoza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages KINGOLD JEWELRY: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 31 Deadline KINGOLD JEWELRY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 31 Deadline KIRKLAND LAKE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline KNOX COUNTY, TN: Amble Appeals E.D. Tenn. Ruling to Sixth Circuit LITTLE ROCK: Appellate Court Upholds $225,000 Legal Fees in Nelson LOUISIANA: Bar Owners File Class Action Lawsuit LYFT INC: Cunningham Denied Prelim. Injunction in Prisoners Suit MARATHON OIL: Callaway Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA MASS GENERAL: Patients File Privacy Class Action MCDERMOTT INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 16 Deadline MCDERMOTT INT'L: Rosen Law Files Class Action MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action MDL 2792: Deal in Suit Over Defective Washing Machine Has Final OK MIDLAND CREDIT: Brown Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation MIDLAND CREDIT: Pettway Sues in E.D.N.Y. Alleging FDCPA Violation MISO ROBOTICS: Winegard Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. New York MYCOMPUTERCAREER.COM INC: Young Sues Over Inaccessible Web Site NESPRESSO USA: Baber Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended C.P. IDEA Suit NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Cauley in Gulino Bias Suit NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Ignacio in Gulino Bias Suit NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Martinez in Gulino Bias Suit NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Parra in Gulino Bias Suit NEW YORK: Kettle Appeals W.D.N.Y. Order and Judgment to 2nd Cir. NO TAX 4 NASH: Faces TCPA Class Actions Over Robocalls PANGEA ORGANICS: Hecht Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation PARAGON FITNESS: Reiners Sues in D. Colorado Over TCPA Violation PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP: Cortez Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 4 Deadline PLAYAGS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Bruner Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Cir. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Combs Files FDCPA Class Suit in M.D. Florida PRAXAIR INC: Court Grants Provisional Class Cert. in Garcia Suit PRECIOUS MOMENTS: Hecht Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation PRETIUM RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Can't Amend Securities Class Action PROSHARES ULTRA: Faces Di Scala Securities Suit Over UCO Offering QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Rice Sues Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties RESURGENT CAPITAL: Deutsch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ROBINS FINANCIAL: Adds Arbitration Provision in Member Agreements RYDER SYSTEM: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Class Action SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SANTEE COOPER: $520MM Class Settlement Obtains Court Approval SECURITY BENEFIT: Faces Clinton RICO Suit Over Sale of Annuities SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Sullivan Sues Over Refusal to Cover Losses SHREVEPORT, LA: $6MM Settlement in Sewer Bill Suit Gets Partial OK SIMPLY SWEEPS: Faces Trim TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts SOUTHERN NEW: Young Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation STARS GROUP: CDN30MM Securities Class Action Settlement Okayed STEMILT AG: H-2A Farm Workers File Employment Rights Class Action SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Minichelli Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina TAHE OUTDOORS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation TARGET CORP: Mills Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California TEACHING COMPANY: Faces Mejico Suit Over Free Trial Subscription TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Rocha Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Fights Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Harris Files Consumer Suit in N.D. Illinois TUFIN SOFTWARE: The Schall Law Reminds of Sept. 18 Deadline UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Francis Mailman Files Class Action Lawsuit UNILEVER: Motion to Dismiss False Advertising Class Action Tossed UNITED COLLECTION: Gordon Files FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York UNITED COLLECTION: Weber Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation UNITED JEWISH: Appellate Court Upholds Arbitration Denial in Hichez UNITED STATES OIL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline UNITED STATES: Cacciapalle Appeals Order & Judgment to Fed. Cir. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Cross-Plan Offsetting VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces Palermo Suit Over Denial of Overtime Wages VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline VERSO CORP: Settlement Reached in Retiree Insurance Class Suit VI-JON INC: Moreno Files Suit in Southern District of California WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline WELLS FARGO: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 3 Deadline WELLS FARGO: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of Aug. 14 Motion Deadline WELLS FARGO: Tippett Sues Over False HELOC Mortgage Corrections WESTPAC: Shine Lawyers Launch Class Action Over Rip-Off Car Loans WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Appointed Lead Counsel WIRECARD AG: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 8 Deadline YAHOO: Judge Slashes $7MM on Fee Request in Data Breach Case YAMBO INC: Chavarria Sues in S.D. Florida Alleging FLSA Violation YNAP CORP: Court Dismisses Guglielmo Action With Prejudice ZODIAC POOL: Ayala Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California [*] Actors' Playhouse May Lead BI Insurance Class Action [*] Baked Goods Companies Hit with IC Misclassification Lawsuits [*] Class Actions Filed Over Syndicated Conservation Easements [*] Class Actions on the Rise Due to COVID-19 Pandemic [*] Corporate Regulator Responds to Class Action Crackdown [*] Gross Law Firm Announces Several Shareholder Class Actions [*] India CCPA Class Action Provision to Impact E-Commerce Firms [*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Keys to Settlements [*] Stikeman Elliott Discusses Ontario Class Action Regime Changes ********* 6G MANAGEMENT: Collram Sues in D. Utah Alleging Violation of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 6G Management Services. The case is styled as Grant Collram, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 6G Management Services, Case No. 2:20-cv-00530-DBB (D. Utah, July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage or overtime compensation). 6G Management is a small business providing large scale clients the best fundamental services in construction management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Paige Benjamin, Esq. PAIGE BENJAMIN ATTORNEY AT LAW PC 470 N University Ave., Ste. 100 PO Box 1464 Provo, UT 84603 Phone: (801) 822-9210 Email: joseph@cml.legal AIM DIRECTIONAL: Hargrave FLSA Suit Moved From S.D. to W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Marcus Hargrave, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Movant v. AIM Directional Services, LLC, Defendant; RigUp, Inc., Respondent; Case No. 2:18-CV-449-DSM, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on July 24, 2020. The Western District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-mc-00784-RP to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. United Collection Bureau Inc. provides debt collection and accounts receivable management services to creditors.[BN] The Plaintiff/Movant is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com litkin@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrea M. Johnson, Esq. Demetri J. Economou, Esq. KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN PC 5051 Westheimer Road, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713) 425-7433 Email: ajohnson@krcl.com deconomou@krcl.com The Respondent is represented by: Ayesha Najam, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP 1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 650-8805 Fax: (713) 750-0903 Email: anajam@gibbs-bruns.com ALLERGAN INC: Faces Napier Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants --------------------------------------------------------------- GAIL NAPIER v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09281-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., July 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Napier case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The Plaintiff is a breast cancer survivor who was implanted with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants and expanders as part of reconstruction procedures following mastectomies. As a result of having the BIOCELL products implanted, she has endured evaluation and explant of the recalled BIOCELL textured implants due to the risk of BIA-ALCL, as well as reconstruction and implantation with alternate implants. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Virginia M. Buchanan, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32591 Telephone: (850) 435-7023 Facsimile: (850) 436-6023 E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com ALLERGAN INC: Faces Skaggs Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY SKAGGS v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09297 (D.N.J., July 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Skaggs case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Mary Skaggs lives in Lexington, Kentucky. In April 23, 1998, she was implanted with Style 168, BIOCELL Textured Round Moderate Profile Saline Breast Implants a model of the Recalled BIOCELL Implants, in Kentucky. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. J. Quinn Kerrigan, Esq. Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net jkerrigan@bm.net josterwise@bm.net emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net ALLERGAN INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN SMITH and RICHARD SMITH, h/w v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09282-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., July 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiffs contend that they will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Smith case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Ms. Smith was implanted with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants as part of an augmentation procedure. As a result, Plaintiff has the recalled BIOCELL textured implants in her body, and desires and intends to have the implants explanted due to the risk of BIA-ALCL. However, due to medical, economic, and other reasons, she has not yet undergone explantation. She will likely require capsulectomy, some degree of reconstructive surgery and re-implantation of alternative implants. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Virginia M. Buchanan, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32591 Telephone: (850) 435-7023 Facsimile: (850) 436-6023 E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com ALLERGAN INC: Faces Tedford Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHASITY TEDFORD and JAMES TEDFORD, h/w v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09266 (D.N.J., July 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiffs contend that they will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Tedford case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Ms. Tedford was implanted with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants as part of an augmentation procedure to correct mammary hypoplasia. As a result of having the BIOCELL products implanted, she has endured evaluation, capsulectomy and explant of the recalled BIOCELL textured implant due to the risk of BIA-ALCL, as well pathological evaluation of her implants and capsules. She also underwent re-implantation of an alternative implant. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Virginia M. Buchanan, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32591 Telephone: (850) 435-7023 Facsimile: (850) 436-6023 E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com ALLERGAN INC: Faces Triplett Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMY TRIPLETT and GREGORY TRIPLETT h/w v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09237-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., July 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiffs contend that they will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Triplett case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Ms. Triplett was implanted with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants as part of an augmentation procedure. As a result of having the BIOCELL products implanted, she has endured evaluation and explant of the recalled BIOCELL textured implant due to the risk of BIA-ALCL, as well capsulectomy. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Randolph Smith, Esq. DAVID RANDOLPH SMITH & ASSOCIATES 1913 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 742-1775 Facsimile: (615) 742-1223 E-mail: dom@drslawfirm.com drs@drslawfirm.com ALLERGAN INC: Faces Wellborn Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ----------------------------------------------------------------- RHONDA WELLBORN v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09324-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., July 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Wellborn case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The Plaintiff is a breast cancer survivor, who was implanted with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants as part of a reconstruction procedure following mastectomy. As a result of having the BIOCELL products implanted, she has endured evaluation and explant of the recalled BIOCELL textured implant due to the risk of BIA-ALCL, as well as reconstruction and re-implantation of an alternative implant. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Johnston, Esq. J. Gordon Rudd, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone (612) 341-0400 Facsimile (612) 341-0844 E-mail: Jason.Johnston@zimmreed.com ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Clark Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants -------------------------------------------------------------- JILL CLARK v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09125 (D.N.J., July 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Clark case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Ms. Jill Clark lives in Sedalia, Kentucky. On August 15, 2016, she was implanted with Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants a model of the Recalled BIOCELL Implants, in Kentucky. As a direct and proximate result of having the Recalled BIOCELL Implants implanted, she is at a significantly increased risk for developing BIA-ALCL and is in need of regular monitoring. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. J. Quinn Kerrigan, Esq. Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net jkerrigan@bm.net josterwise@bm.net emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Gentry Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants --------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA GENTRY and MICHAEL GENTRY, JR. h/w v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09140 (D.N.J., July 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiffs contend that they will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Gentry case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Plaintiff Amanda Gentry was implanted with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants as part of an augmentation procedure. As a result of having the BIOCELL products implanted, she has endured evaluation and explant of the recalled BIOCELL textured implant due to the risk of BIA-ALCL, as well capsulectomy. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dominick R. Smith, Esq. David Randolph Smith, Esq. DAVID RANDOLPH SMITH & ASSOCIATES 1913 21st Avenue South Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 742-1775 Facsimile: (615) 742-1223 E-mail: dom@drslawfirm.com drs@drslawfirm.com ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Hartfield Suit Over Faulty BIOCELL Implants --------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME HARTFIELD and JEFFREY HARTFIELD, SR. h/w v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09245 (D.N.J., July 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiffs contend that they will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Hartfield case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Plaintiff Jaime Hartfield Gentry was implanted with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants as part of an augmentation procedure. As a result of having the BIOCELL products implanted, she has endured evaluation and explant of the recalled BIOCELL textured implant due to the risk of BIA-ALCL, as well capsulectomy. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dominick R. Smith, Esq. David Randolph Smith, Esq. DAVID RANDOLPH SMITH & ASSOCIATES 1913 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 742-1775 Facsimile: (615) 742-1223 E-mail: dom@drslawfirm.com drs@drslawfirm.com ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Peterson Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE PETERSON and MICHAEL PETERSON h/w v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09147 (D.N.J., July 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiffs contend that they will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The Peterson case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Plaintiff Michelle Peterson was implanted with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants as part of an augmentation procedure. As a result of having the BIOCELL products implanted, she has endured evaluation and explant of the recalled BIOCELL textured implant due to the risk of BIA-ALCL, as well capsulectomy. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dominick R. Smith, Esq. David Randolph Smith, Esq. DAVID RANDOLPH SMITH & ASSOCIATES 1913 21st Avenue South Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 742-1775 Facsimile: (615) 742-1223 E-mail: dom@drslawfirm.com drs@drslawfirm.com ALLERGAN PLC: Faces West Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants ------------------------------------------------------------- DANA WEST and MARK WEST, h/w v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09146 (D.N.J., July 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective. The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly treated. The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says. In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants; Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants; Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806). On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months, until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiffs contend that they will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time. The West case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Plaintiff Dana West was implanted with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants as part of an augmentation procedure. As a result of having the BIOCELL products implanted, Ms. West has endured evaluation, capsulectomy and explant of the recalled BIOCELL textured implant due to the risk of BIA-ALCL, as well pathological evaluation of her implants and capsules. She is awaiting reconstruction. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or "BIOCELL textured implants").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Virginia M. Buchanan, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street (32502) P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32591 Telephone: (850) 435-7023 Facsimile: (850) 436-6023 E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com ALLIED NEVADA: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA In re ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 3:14-cv-00175-LRH-WGC This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORPORATION ("ALLIED") COMMON STOCK IN THE UNITED STATES OR ON A SECURITIES EXCHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 18, 2013, THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 5, 2013, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS"): THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on November 16, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. (PT), before the Honorable Larry R. Hicks at the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Bruce R. Thompson Federal Courthouse, 400 S. Virginia Street, Reno, NV 89501, to determine whether the Court should: (1) grant final certification to the Class; (2) approve the proposed Settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $14,000,000.00 in cash ("Settlement Amount") as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) enter the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (4) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement proceeds to eligible Class Members as fair and equitable; (5) award Lead Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees, costs and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount; and (6) reimburse Lead Plaintiff for his costs and expenses in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ALLIED COMMON STOCK IN THE UNITED STATES OR ON A SECURITIES EXCHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES FROM JANUARY 18, 2013, THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 5, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail postmarked no later than November 7, 2020 or electronically submitted online no later than November 7, 2020. Your failure to submit or deliver your Proof of Claim form by November 7, 2020, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim form. If you have NOT received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation and other settlement documents, online at www.AlliedNevadaSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: Allied Nevada Gold Securities Settlement c/o Epiq P.O. Box 4087 Portland, OR 97208-4087 Please do NOT direct inquiries to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim form, may be made to Lead Counsel: CHARLES J. PIVEN, ESQ. BROWER PIVEN, A Professional Corporation. 3704 North Charles Street, #1301 Baltimore, MD 21218 Email: piven@browerpiven.com If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked or delivered no later than September 28, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All Class Members who have not requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by the Settlement even if they do not submit a timely Proof of Claim form. If you are a Class Member, you have the right to comment or object to final certification of the Class, the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 33 1/3% of the Settlement amount and/or reimbursement of their litigation expenses not to exceed $450,000.00, and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of his time and expenses representing the Class not to exceed $10,000.00. Any comment or objection must be filed with the Court and mailed or delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that it is postmarked or delivered no later than September 28, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. If you object to the final certification of the Class, the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Lead Plaintiff's application for an award of attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of their Litigation expenses and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of his expenses representing the Class, and wish to be heard at the Settlement Hearing on November 20, 2020, you may ask the Court to do so by including with your objection a statement saying that it is your "notice of intention to appear in the Allied Nevada Gold Securities Settlement." Any Class Member may enter an appearance in the Action, individually or through counsel of their own choice and at their own expense. If you wish to appear, you or your counsel must file with the Clerk of the Court and deliver to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel a notice of such appearance no later than September 23, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. DATED: July 22, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.AlliedNevadaSecuritiesSettlement.com. [GN] AMERICAN FEDERATION: Ohio Public Employees Win Class Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Highland County Press reports that Ohio public employees have just won a settlement in their federal class-action lawsuit charging the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 11 union and the State of Ohio with enforcing illegal restrictions on their First Amendment right to cut off union dues deductions. The lawsuit was filed with free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The lawsuit, brought by four state employees, challenged a union-created "escape period" dues deduction scheme as being unconstitutional under the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court struck down mandatory union fees for public sector workers as an infringement of their First Amendment rights, and ruled that the government can only deduct union dues or fees with an individual's affirmative and knowing consent. The State of Ohio and AFSCME's "maintenance of membership" policy blocked workers from exercising their right to end union dues deductions except for a brief escape period that opened roughly once every three years at the expiration of the union monopoly bargaining contract. The AFSCME boss-created scheme was imposed by the State of Ohio on an estimated 28,000 Buckeye State public servants. Now, as a result of the settlement, AFSCME officials and the State of Ohio have rescinded their "maintenance of membership" restriction on when state workers can exercise their First Amendment right to cut off union dues deductions. They also are required to honor requests to stop dues deductions from any employees who signed the AFSCME dues authorization form at issue in the lawsuit. Finally, the settlement requires AFSCME bosses to pay back dues seized illegally under the scheme to the plaintiffs and more than 150 other employees who tried to cut off union dues deductions after Janus was decided. Seven other Ohio public employees won the first-in-the-nation victory against unconstitutional "escape periods" with Foundation aid in January 2019. These workers filed a class-action federal lawsuit challenging a similar policy created by AFSCME Council 8 bosses and won a settlement ending the restrictions for themselves and their coworkers. That win was followed by two other Ohio public workers, Connie Pennington and Donna Fizer, successfully ending "escape period" restrictions with Foundation assistance in 2019. "Although this string of victories for Buckeye State public employees and their First Amendment rights is certainly encouraging, the widespread nature of these schemes shows there remains much work to do to force union bosses to end their unconstitutional restrictions on public employees' First Amendment Janus rights," National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. "Governor DeWine and Attorney General Yost need to move quickly to stop violations of the First Amendment rights of all Ohio public sector workers and should cease collecting union dues from any worker who has not affirmatively consented to pay them." The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250 cases per year. Its web address is www.nrtw.org. [GN] AMP: Financial Advisers in Australia to File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Cristian Angeloni, writing for International Adviser, reports that a number of financial advisers in Australia have turned to a commercial law firm to file a class action lawsuit against wealth giant AMP. Around 100 former AMP advisers allege that the company did not give them adequate notice before writing down the value of their client books, as required under their buyer of last resort (BOLR) contracts, reports local industry news website IFA.com.au. The 100 advisers' employment was terminated during a drastic shake up of the firm's wealth business last year. 'No one would have signed up' Neil Macdonald, chief executive of Australia's Association of Financial Advisers (AFA), said that the case will revolve around the "contractual change for adequate notice" clause. The 100 advisers believe they should have been given a one-year warning before any write-downs of business values came into force. "There is a clause in the contract and it basically says that if there is a detrimental change [to values], AMP has to give 13 months' notice, [and] advisers can give six or 12 months' notice to exit before the new terms come in," Macdonalds said. An additional clause says that, if changes of economic, legislative or political nature are indeed detrimental, then the firm can make changes to the contracts. He continued: "That would be the core argument--they might think they've got the right to change [terms] unilaterally whenever they feel like it, but obviously no one would sign up to a contract like that." AMP has not put out a statement on the class action, and International Adviser was not able to contact the firm for comment. [GN] AMYRIS INC: Sabatini Challenges Lacking Proxy for Aug. 14 Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Sabatini, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMYRIS, INC., JOHN DOERR, GEOFFREY DUYK, PHILIP EYKERMAN, CHRISTOPH GOPPELSROEDER, FRANK KUNG, JAMES MCCANN, JOHN MELO, STEVE MILLS, CAROLE PIWNICA, PATRICK YANG, and LISA QI, Case No. 1:20-cv-01013-UNA (D. Del., July 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with their dissemination of a materially incomplete proxy statement, which scheduled a special meeting of stockholders for August 14, 2020, to vote upon approval of the issuance of shares of the Company's common stock. On June 1, 2020, the Company's Board of Directors caused the Company and certain of its subsidiaries to enter into Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, dated October 28, 2019 (the "Loan Agreement Amendment") with Foris Ventures, LLC. On June 1, 2020 and June 4, 2020, the Company entered into separate security purchase agreements (the "Purchase Agreements," and together with the Loan Agreement Amendment, the "Agreements") with certain accredited investors (the "Investors") for the issuance of an aggregate of 32,614,573 shares of the Company's common stock, and 102,156.21 shares of the Company's Series E Convertible Preferred Stock, convertible into 34,052,070 shares of common stock at a price of $3.00 per common share and $1,000 per preferred share, resulting in an aggregate purchase price of $200 million (the "Offering"). The Proxy Statement was filed by Amyris with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020. The Proxy Statement scheduled a special meeting of Amyris' stockholders for August 14, 2020, to vote upon approval of the issuance of shares of the Company's common stock. However, the Proxy Statement omits material information, according to the complaint. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the financial projections and analyses that the Individual Defendants considered and relied upon in coming to their decision to approve the Agreements. The Proxy Statement allegedly fails to disclose the Company's financial advisors in connection with the Agreements and the terms of their engagements, including: (i) the amount of compensation the financial advisors have received or will receive in connection with their engagements; (ii) whether the financial advisors have performed past services for any parties to the Agreements or their affiliates; (iii) the timing and nature of such services; and (iv) the amount of compensation received by the financial advisors for providing such services. The Proxy Statement also fails to disclose a fair summary of the process and negotiations leading up to the execution of the Agreements. The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff adds that a reasonable investor will view a full and accurate disclosure as significantly altering the total mix of information made available in the Proxy Statement and in other information reasonably available to stockholders. Because of the false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the owner of Amyris common stock. Amyris is a science and technology leader in the research, development, and production of sustainable ingredients for the Health and Wellness, Clean Beauty, and Flavors and Fragrances markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com ANDERSON UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anderson University. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Anderson University, Case No. 1:20-cv-05785 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Anderson University is a private university in Anderson, South Carolina. The University offers bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in approximately 78 areas of study.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com APPLE INC: Appeals Court Rejects Apple TV Consumer Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond at Reuters reports that a California appeals court has declined a bid by consumers who accused Apple Inc of misleading them by falsely touting the high-definition quality streaming capabilities of its Apple TVs to pursue their claims as a class. California's Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled that a trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that common questions did not exist that would allow damages and restitution to be determined on a class-wide basis. [GN] ARDENT LEISURE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Dreamworld -------------------------------------------------------------- Robyn Wuth and Cheryl Goodenough, writing for Australian Associated Press, report that shareholders of the company that owns Dreamworld have gone to court to seek compensation for losses following the Thunder River Rapids Ride tragedy which killed four people. Ardent Leisure confirmed in a statement a shareholder class action has been served against it in connection with the 2016 deaths, and said it would "vigorously defend the proceedings". Cindy Low, Kate Goodchild, her brother Luke Dorsett and his partner Roozi Araghi were killed when a water pump on the ride malfunctioned, causing water levels to fall dangerously low. Three criminal charges were filed against Ardent Leisure, alleging a failure to comply with a health and safety duty that exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury. The maximum penalty for each breach is $1.5 million, or $4.5 million in total. Separately, proceedings have been filed by legal firm Piper Alderman in the Federal Court on behalf of people who acquired Ardent shares between June 17, 2014 and October 25, 2016. "The claim alleges Ardent misled investors about the safety measures and corporate governance standards in place at Dreamworld in the years preceding the accident causing Ardent's shares to trade at an artificially inflated price," Piper Alderman states on its website. The class action argues claims by the Ardent Leisure Group over guest safety contradicted the findings of an inquest into the four deaths. The findings were handed down in February after months of evidence in 2018. This latest claim by shareholders accuses Ardent of "misleading and deceptive conduct" for claiming it adhered to best practices and Australian Standards and had systems in place to maintain a safe environment for guests. The claim argues Ardent "likely knew or ought to have known" from January 2001 that Thunder River Rapid Ride rafts could collide and capsize, posing a risk to patrons. It also says evidence presented at the inquest shows "no proper safety system or document management system was in place at Dreamworld" while it was under Ardent Leisure Group's control. The class action action is against Craig Davidson, the chief executive officer of Ardent's Theme Park division until July 2018 as well as Ardent Leisure Limited, Ardent Leisure Management Limited and Ardent Leisure Group Limited. Ardent said it will fight the allegations. "Ardent strongly denies any contraventions as alleged and believes the proceedings to be without merit," its statement said. [GN] ASENDIA USA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that Asendia USA, Inc., failed to provide their employees with wages when due or accurate itemized wage statements, as required by California law. The Asendia USA, Inc., class action lawsuit, Case No. 20STCV22863, is currently pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court of the State of California. According to the lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Asendia USA, Inc. allegedly failed to provide PLAINTIFF accurate itemized wage statements. DEFENDANT allegedly from time to time violated Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226 by failing to provide wage statements that identified the correct gross wages earned. Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226 provides that "every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate." Additionally, the complaint further alleges Asendia USA, Inc., committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which failed to accurately calculate and record the correct overtime rate for the overtime worked by PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay all required overtime compensation for work performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor Code. If you would like to know more about the Asendia USA, Inc. lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims, contact one of their attorneys today. [GN] ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Terminal Class Action Cannot Proceed, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Canadian Press reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a class-action lawsuit taking aim at video lottery terminals cannot proceed, saying the claims made in the case are bound to fail. The high court overturned a Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal decision that had cleared the way for the class action, which alleged the Atlantic Lottery Corp.'s VLT games are inherently deceptive, addictive and illegal under the Criminal Code. The action included as many as 30,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador who paid the corporation to gamble on VLT games from 2006 to 2012, when the claim was filed. The lead plaintiffs, retirees Douglas Babstock and Fred Small, were seeking damages equal to the alleged unlawful gain obtained by the lottery corporation through VLT revenue. The corporation said the plaintiffs could not possibly show the VLT games fall within the Criminal Code's prohibition against three-card monte--a game in which a player tries to follow one of three cards through a series of manipulations and then bets on his or her ability to locate the card. Plaintiffs pursuing a class action must first go through the certification stage and demonstrate that the pleadings reveal a valid cause of action. Once a class action is certified, it can proceed to trial. In its decision, the Supreme Court set aside the certification order in the VLT action and struck out the statement of claim in its entirety. Atlantic Lottery Corp. is satisfied with the outcome, said Greg Weston, a spokesman for the corporation. "We will stand by our program. As the only regulated video lottery provider in Atlantic Canada, Atlantic Lottery provides its players with a responsible and regulated video lottery program that delivers benefits to our communities." Kirk Baert, a lawyer for Babstock and Small, said the decision means "the case is over and the issue of the alleged deceptive practices of the Atlantic Lottery Corp. will not be further explored. That is unfortunate." The plaintiffs had relied on three causes of action: -- Waiver of tort, alleging a breach of a duty to warn of dangers posed by the lottery terminals, including the risk of addiction; -- Breach of contract on the basis there was a contract between players and the corporation to provide safe games fit for use; -- Unjust enrichment at the expense of players. "Each claim that the plaintiffs have pleaded is bound to fail because it discloses no reasonable cause of action," Justice Russell Brown wrote on behalf of a majority of the Supreme Court. The court said the plaintiffs' claim that VLTs are similar to three-card monte within the meaning of the Criminal Code, thereby outlawing them, had no reasonable prospect of succeeding. The text of the Criminal Code provision, taken in full context, suggests the prohibition of games "similar to" three-card monte was directed towards the game's concrete attributes and not towards the abstract feature of deception, the decision said. "One would expect that, had Parliament sought to prohibit broadly deceptive gambling games, it would have straightforwardly done so," Brown wrote. Games "similar to" three-card monte must therefore involve, at a minimum, a player betting on the location of an object after a series of a manipulations, he said. "Nothing in the pleadings describes VLTs as operating in this manner," he wrote. "Thus, the claim that VLTs are similar to three-card monte has no reasonable chance of success."[GN] ATLAS BUILDERS: Richardson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Clinton Richardson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ATLAS BUILDERS LLC, ALEXANDER ALEXANDROV and MIKHAIL A. YUSIM, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-05756 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime premiums owed to the Plaintiff pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that he was paid the same hourly wage for all hours worked such that he did not receive overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 each week. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with a wage notice annually or when his wage rate(s) changed, or wage statements along with his weekly wage payments, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former laborer and foreman at the Defendants' construction management company. The Defendants operates a construction management company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 Email: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com AURORA, CO: Suit filed v. Police Over McClain Vigil --------------------------------------------------- Fox31 Morning News reports that the attorney who represents Elijah McClain's family, Mari Newman, has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the City of Aurora and several other individual officers and police leaders because of the heavy police response during a demonstration in honor of McClain's life last month. "Aurora again resorted to bullying and violence during a violin vigil that was held on June 27, 2020, to honor Elijah and call for justice for his murder," the suit says. "We are filing that lawsuit to align with the police reformation that we're seeking," said Thomas Mayes, who is named as a plaintiff and sits on the City's new police task force. "An apology is not enough." Police responded to the area with pepper spray, smoke bombs, and 40mm foam rounds to disperse the crowd. The police chief previously defended officers and pointed out that some agitators were throwing objects, including rocks, at officers. Mayes said the main thing that disturbed him at the scene of the McClain vigil was that people were not given enough time to disperse from the scene and some people didn't even hear the announcement to move away from the area. "Within less than five minutes (police) fired what they say now is just smoke . . . and pepper spray." "There were many, many people there who were doing the right thing and protesting peacefully, but there were a faction of agitators that came with pipes and sticks and helmets and gas masks and face shields," Chief Vanessa Wilson previously told the FOX31 Problem Solvers after the June protest. At that time, Wilson also said she believed the officers behaved lawfully. "I'm sure that people were confused, and a lot of people of people saying, 'No,' when they saw the riot police, and I understand that, and I sympathize with that. But it really was us trying to separate that peaceful group from the people that were coming with and throwing rocks and creating havoc," Wilson said last month. Wilson is also named in the suit. Problem Solvers is currently reviewing the lawsuit. This story will be updated shortly.[GN] AUSTRALIA: PFAS Issues Still Unresolved Despite Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Conor O'Beirne, Esq., of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, in an article for Mondaq, reports that a lack of strategic oversight of highly complex per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contaminations creates uncertainty for all parties and may hinder management progress. This is not dissimilar to the early days of asbestos regulation and management. Nevertheless, the Mondaq article provides practical answers to some frequently asked PFAS management questions, including due diligence enquiries and contractual considerations. Context On February 27, 2020, an 'in-principle' settlement was reached between the Australian Government and residents of three communities which had their groundwater contaminated by toxic firefighting foams used at defence bases until the early 2000s. While the resolution of this case is welcomed by many, it does little to clarify the legal position of those who have used or been affected by PFAS, including: -- developers; -- earthmoving contractors; -- local government (carrying out public sector work, as decision-maker, particularly in the planning sphere and, in some cases, as the lessor of land); and -- land-owners and operators of facilities where PFAS has been used or accepted. These groups are none the wiser about how they should go about dealing with PFAS contamination and whether they should prepare to undertake, or defend, litigation. Obvious comparisons can be made between the early regulation of asbestos and the advent of the regulation of PFAS. It is fair to say that initial regulation of asbestos lacked coordination between State agencies and council responses across a number of different issues and in a range of circumstances. For example, in 1990, an inquiry into the presence and usage of asbestos in Victoria was conducted. The Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Commission's Inquiry Report, 'Asbestos, an inquiry: usage in Victoria, substitutes and alternatives'1 noted, among other things, that there was a general trend towards the substitution of non-asbestos friction materials for asbestos materials (although the trend was weaker in some markets) because of market forces and regulatory pressure in the US and other countries. However, the Inquiry also stated it was evident that progress towards the elimination of the use of asbestos would be enhanced by regulatory measures. That Inquiry also noted that it was evident that various basic facts about asbestos usage in Victoria were not known. Reports into the regulation and trends dealing with asbestos provide insight into a lack of wide-spread understanding about PFAS and any associated regulatory and strategic weaknesses. A lack of strategic oversight, coordination and understanding of the possible role State and local governments should play also lies at the heart of many concerns about PFAS regulation and response in Queensland. The lack of strategic oversight should also be seen against the background of common law claims, which might lay in negligence, nuisance, trespass and breach of statutory duty. Where there are legal regulatory gaps, class actions or individual claims may fill the void -- making for uncertainty in business, industry and town planning. This, of course, is never ideal. This Insight explores the gaps in the regulatory regime to date, provides some guidance to frequently asked questions on how best to manage contamination and raises the types of matters that ought to be considered when drafting contracts. An introduction to PFAS PFAS are man-made carbon and fluorine-based chemicals that have, for the last 50 or so years, been widely used because they can make products non-stick, water repellent, and fire, weather and stain resistant. Some examples of their use is in carpets and cook-ware and, of course, fire-fighting foams. PFAS are highly persistent, highly mobile and bio-accumulates in humans and animals in the environment. An Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment was made in 1992 between the Commonwealth and all States and Territories and one of its objectives1 is the establishment of nationally consistent environmental standards. In accordance with, and following that Intergovernmental Agreement and complementary legislation, the Commonwealth, States and Territories are now all signatories to an agreement ( Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Framework for Responding to PFAS Contamination) that supports collaboration and cooperation between the parties to respond consistently and effectively to PFAS contamination. (Revisions to the Agreement came into effect on 7 February 2020. However, Queensland and Victoria have not yet signed the revised agreement). This agreement identified, among other things, key areas for action to increase national consistency in responding to PFAS contamination as including: * Following standard processes and existing guidance material to identify, investigate and manage PFAS contamination on government-owned sites, or on sites where government activities have resulted in PFAS contamination; and * Applying the January 2018 PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP), as endorsed by the Heads of EPAs in Australia and New Zealand and agreed by Environment Ministers. The NEMP recommends a precautionary approach to be adopted in dealing with PFAS. Human exposure should therefore be minimised. A version 2.0 consultation draft of the NEMP was released on March 1, 2019 and has now been finalised. PFAS NEMP v2.0 was agreed by the Heads of the EPAs in October 2019. It has since been endorsed by Environmental Ministers and is being implemented in a number of jurisdictions. Curiously, Victoria and Queensland have not yet endorsed it. Interestingly, between drafts: * PFOA Recreational Water Quality Guideline value changed from 5.6 to 10.0 µg/L based on changes in the assumption for the frequency and likelihood of exposure during recreational activities. * The PFOA Human Investigation Level A (Residential with garden/accessible soil) was going to be 0.3 mg/kg, but remains at 0.1 mg/kg. * The Ecological Soil Guideline recognises that traditional land use categories are not relevant to ecological risks, and therefore a single guideline value is now applicable to all land uses, not just public open space (for direct exposure). * Biota Guideline values and Ecological Water Quality Guideline values remain the same as the draft PFAS NEMP v2.0. * Sections 10 (On-site stockpiling, storage and containment), 11 (Transport of PFAS-contaminated material) and 12 (Reuse of PFAS contaminated materials including soils and water) is similar to the respective sections in the consultation draft, but PFAS NEMP v2.0 contains more detail. The reuse of PFAS-contaminated soils remains subject to State and territory oversight but PFAS NEMP v2.0 provides guidance by way of a decision tree 2 but it does not address the use of PFAS contaminated soil in agriculture which would self-evidently entail higher risks that require specific assessment. The reuse of PFAS contaminated water must not occur until consultation with the relevant regulators has taken place. While reuse options include irrigation of non-edible crops it does not include the irrigation of edible crops and is silent on irrigation of feed for farm animals whose products will be consumed by people. Rather, the PFAS NEMP v2.0 notes that contact ought to be made with the regulator before a proposal for reuse on agricultural land is made. However, what mechanisms, if any, will be employed to ensure that edible crops are not rotated onto the land which has been irrigated with PFAS contaminated water, or that livestock bred for consumption or product will not graze on that land in the future? The PFAS NEMP 2.0 is a living document and, accordingly, will be informally regularly reviewed to align with scientific research, technical developments and lessons learned from experiences in managing PFAS contamination. However, the next formal review is due in 2023. Queensland environmental regulatory response While Queensland's policy documents generally provide that the NEMP guides jurisdictions in implementing mechanisms for the regulation of PFAS, including transport, treatment and disposal, in reality the NEMP provides little guidance as to how government agencies should actually regulate PFAS contamination and management. The Queensland Government has developed a PFAS Contamination Protocol, which provides key principles in managing legacy stocks and contamination at sites controlled by Queensland government agencies. The Department of Environment and Science (Department) has also issued waste tracking obligations for PFAS in Queensland and most recently updated the application form for a disposal permit for contaminated soil to include reference to the NEPM (if PFAS contaminants might be present) and the Victorian EPA soil sampling guidelines. Under section 319 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Department also prepared an Operational Policy - Environmental Management of Firefighting Foam dated July 7, 2016. This document set out the Department's expectations as to how fire-fighting foams containing PFAS were to be phased out by July 7, 2019. While not phasing out these foams by July 7, 2019 in non-compliance with this operational policy is not in of itself an offence, if there was an incident and fire-fighting foams containing PFAS were released into the environment, then proving a defence of compliance with the general environmental duty would be difficult. As with the NEMP, these documents do not provide general guidance to PFAS testing and management. Ultimately, where guidance values are 'somewhat certain' and not interim values, following the guidance provided by the NEMP will likely constitute compliance with an entity's general environmental duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and/or compliance with associated policy documents. Until acceptance criteria are settled all we have in a practical sense is the NEMP's current values. This position, is of course, complicated by the fact that the Queensland State Government has not yet endorsed and implemented PFAS NEMP v2.0. While compliance with the NEMP might be sufficient for governmental regulatory and enforcement action, it leaves an uncertain position from a civil point of view. In time we expect the PFAS NEMP v2.0 to be endorsed and applied. Queensland planning regulatory response From a planning perspective, there is little guidance. The State Planning Policy (SPP) provides that the State Interest - emissions and hazardous activities, must be appropriately integrated in planning and development outcomes. Amongst other things, activities involving the use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and prescribed hazardous chemicals, are to be managed to minimise the health and safety risks to communities and individuals. Sensitive land uses are to be protected from the impacts of previous activities that may cause risk to people or property including former landfill and contaminated land. This nebulous reference to hazardous activities and contaminated land ought to be read against the background that when dealing with impact assessable development applications, the assessment manager (often the local government) can have regard to "any other relevant matter". Subject to the nature of the development, risks to human health and the environment arising from PFAS contamination are a "relevant matter". Further, it may not be so easy to merely rely upon discretion and consider PFAS as not relevant. Should Council approve certain developments where the land is, or may become, impacted by PFAS, there is a real risk that additional people may be exposed to PFAS if Council approves new development on known contaminated sites. This may make Council vulnerable to claims including for negligence 4 and breach of statutory duty. To make themselves less vulnerable to litigation, local governments may wish to consider amending their planning schemes. Without strong scientific evidence as to adverse impacts of PFAS, at this point in time, amendments need not be overly onerous and may focus on requiring developers to, for example, make more detailed enquiries and give assurances about past uses or activities or to provide information on the geohydrology of the site. Accordingly, local governments should take reasonable care to prevent harm being caused to people because of impact assessable developments approved by it. What that "reasonable care" looks like and what is the scope of its statutory duty in a planning context are the unanswered, and difficult, questions. As noted earlier, the recent settlement of the PFAS defence class action gives limited guidance. It clarifies that land-owners and operators of facilities where PFAS has been used need to be careful as they may be found negligent for "damage" suffered; that damage may not necessarily be for personal injuries but may be broader to capture reduced property values or damages associated with impacted water infrastructure such as bores. It is interesting to note that documents filed as part of the class action propose that the settlement of the PFAS class action does not exclude any present or future claims for personal injury. Some in the legal community anticipate class actions for personal injury will eventually be commenced against the Commonwealth. While the abovementioned class actions appear to have resolved, a fresh class action has been filed in respect of PFAS contamination from the Royal Australian Airforce base at Pearce in Western Australia. There is a prospect that this matter may resolve in a more expeditious manner following the outcome of the previous class actions. Background to class action Residents from Williamtown in New South Wales, Oakey in Queensland and Katherine in the Northern Territory had each brought class actions, which contended that the Department of Defence was liable for depressed land values and business outlooks. The residents' groundwater was found to be contaminated following the use of PFAS which were widely used in firefighting foams at nearby defence bases. In summary, the properties were not fit for purpose, and because of the stigma of the contamination, the property values had collapsed. This case is clearly important because the Commonwealth Government has recognised the communities were adversely affected by the PFAS. It is understood that the Department of Defence has committed to remediating the Army Aviation Centre Oakey. What that actually means, given PFAS is difficult to treat and dispose of, is yet to be fully established. However, as part of the Department's response to manage the PFAS contamination (and its liability exposure) it has: -- provided alternative drinking water to properties otherwise reliant on contaminated bores in the areas surrounding the Army Aviation Centre Oakey, and RAAF Bases Williamtown, Tindal and Pearce; -- installed a number of water treatment plants at the RAAF Base Williamtown, the Army Aviation Centre Oakey and Katherine; and -- reduced the migration of PFASin surface and groundwater by: * excavating approximately 200mm of sediment from approximately three kilometres of open drains at Williamtown; * removing and disposing of 12,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil at Army Aviation Centre Oakey; and * stockpiled soil associated with construction redevelopment projects. This case and growing community awareness may pressure the States and Territories to provide better guidance as to the ways it expects all stakeholder to manage the PFAS risk. Time will tell. While as seen above there are a number of agencies and various 'guidance' documents available, there is no whole-of-government, integrated strategic plan for coordinating the agencies' responses to PFAS issues. Given that gap the following are some frequently asked management queries. Frequently asked management questions * What desktop analysis should I undertake? * What sort of contamination management options are available? - Can I back-fill trenches with (or containing) PFAS material? - Can I store PFAS contaminated material on-site? - Can I dispose of PFAS in trade waste? * Should I expect conditions dealing with PFAS in impact assessable development approvals? * Should contracts specifically reference PFAS? Desktop investigations When undertaking due diligence, for example, for the purchase or development of a site, specific instructions ought to be given to the relevant consultants to consider whether any current or historical land uses of the subject and adjoining sites may be associated with PFAS contamination. So not just fire stations or sites which have been subject to past fires or fire-fighting training exercises but also sites where other PFAS associated land uses may have occurred such as: -- textile manufacturing; -- paper mills; -- chemical manufacturing; -- landfills; and -- metal plating. If potential for PFAS contamination is identified by the desktop assessment, then PFAS should be included in the suite of contaminants tested for in both soil and groundwater. In some cases, it may also be appropriate to test for PFAS precursors which can combine to form PFAS in the environment. At present, most sampling is tested by laboratories to the limit of reporting (LOR) currently recognised in the NEMP – i.e. 0.01-0.05 ug/L for water, 1-5 ug/kg for solids and 5-20 ug/kg for biosolids. PFAS NEMP v2.0 states that the limit of reporting may be affected by the presence of other contaminants in individual samples that cause analytical interferences that raise the achievable limit of reporting. This is more likely to occur when dealing with soil, waste, biosolids and biota samples. The requirement for ultra-low limit of reporting depends on the sample type. It is also worth noting that not all Australian laboratories have low limit of reporting capabilities. It is also worth noting that some approaches taken interstate have a lower LOR for solids– i.e. 4 ug/kg solids. Most laboratories can test to 4ug/kg. Consideration of testing to this lower threshold is appropriate in order to better safe-guard legal interests appears prudent. Contamination management options If the sampling confirms elevated PFAS levels, it will be important to: * understand the need to monitor PFAS precursors. Some treatment processes may transform precursors creating an apparent increase in PFAS following remediation; * understand the volume of contaminated soil likely to require excavation (where possible, over estimate); * identify potential opportunities for on-site reuse (e.g. encapsulation below road, use in re-graded road verges) and ensure the site is hydrogeolocially appropriate: -- on-site reuse is generally an acceptable practise unless ongoing containment presents unacceptable risks or on-going management. -- so, for example, backfilling a burial plot is likely be appropriate, so long as the plot is more than 2m above the seasonal groundwater level. Backfilling a service trench may also be appropriate but not if the loosening of soil creates a pathway to sensitive receptors. -- relocation on-site must be in such a way as to not allow the contamination to migrate into surrounding soil, water or groundwater. -- consider a leachate and stormwater run-off system if stockpiling on-site. * consider whether any excess volume is likely to require off-site disposal. If so, this may trigger requirements for a soil disposal permit, compliance with waste tracking obligations, use of licensed transporters, disposal at licensed landfills and payment of the landfill waste levy. * consider whether obtaining a trade waste approval for say, leachate, is feasible and appropriate. Be aware that in Queensland, a trade waste approval is essentially a statutorily mandated commercial agreement. 6 Service providers are not compelled to accept leachate and can do so on a conditional basis if it chooses as the grounds for conditions are broad. * be aware that when dealing with impact assessable development, assessment managers are increasingly likely to consider PFAS issues and condition accordingly. What that will look like is still to be seen but a well drafted development application with supporting materials may go some way to help shape the assessment authority's decision. * consider whether there are any disclosure obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld). * consider whether this information ought to be included in any applications for regulatory approval, i.e. development approvals. Contractual considerations It is likely that PFAS considerations will increasingly be included in contracts so all parties ought to be aware of current practises but also likely changes in the regulatory environment and to make appropriate contractual accommodation. It may be necessary to address a range of matters including the allocation of risk for PFAS contaminated sites including changes in the law or policy positions. Until such time as the NEMP is enshrined into State legislation, any contamination specific Environmental Performance Requirements should refer to the NEMP (as amended from time to time). Concluding remarks A recurring theme during the Queensland Ombudsman's investigation into the regulation of asbestos was a lack of coordination between different agencies and councils in situations where their jurisdictional spheres met or overlapped. In some areas of asbestos regulation there was significant confusion about agency and council responsibilities, overlap between agencies and councils, and a number of areas where no agency or council claimed responsibility. There seems to be a similar lack of cohesion in the regulation of PFAS. Without some strategic oversight and better linkage between environmental and planning requirements as well as better investigation into disposal and management of PFAS, it is clear some agencies and councils will have difficulty understanding the scope of their role and responsibilities or the jurisdiction of other each other. Poor interagency communication and communication with the public about asbestos contributed to difficulties in managing asbestos issues, particularly in natural disasters. Better dialogue, now, between various State departments and local governments may go some way to ensuring mistakes associated with the regulation of asbestos don't recur in the PFAS regulation sphere. There is clearly significant public interest in ensuring that the framework for PFAS regulation in Queensland operates in an effective and efficient manner, without duplication, gaps or confusion about roles or responsibilities. We await the Victorian and Queensland responses which may clarify management of PFAS in those States, namely, whether the PFAS NEMP v2.0 will be adopted soon. In the meantime, it is important for any entity dealing with PFAS affected sites, or adjoining sites, where relevant: -- to be vigilant in their due diligence; -- to be clear in giving instructions to consultants, including what to test (i.e. soil and groundwater; where to test and the level of reporting); -- to be aware of management constraints when dealing with PFAS, including whether on-site or off-site disposal is a feasible option; -- to make provisions in contracts about PFAS and who is responsible for risk associated with its management; and -- to be deliberate and thorough in assessment of impact assessable development (which may involve planning scheme amendments in order to provide transparency and ensure consistency in decision making). Time will tell whether the recent class-action matter will be the impetus for State agencies and local governments to take action to ensure that PFAS regulation occurs in a more coordinated and strategic fashion, with greater linkages between different regulatory agencies. [GN] BAER & TIMBERLAKE: Lewandowski Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JIMMIE LEWANDOWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BAER & TIMBERLAKE, P.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-01110-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com BALEARIA CARIBBEAN: Dimond Kaplan Files Class Suit Over Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Consumer fraud law firm Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit against Balearia Caribbean Ltd., Corp. (f/k/a Bahamas Express) for failing to refund customers for ferry services that the company cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic. Balearia provides a ferry service between Fort Lauderdale, Florida and the Bahamas. The lawsuit accuses Balearia of, among other things, violating its own contract and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Balearia Promised Refunds for Cancelled Ferry Service During the time in question, the terms and conditions on Balearia's website for its ferry services provided that if the ferry for which a ticket had been purchased did not carry out the stipulated journey, the customer would be entitled to be reimbursed for the ticket. That is, in exchange for purchasing tickets from Balearia for ferry service on dates and times certain, customers were supposed to receive ferry services on the ticketed dates and times. And if Balearia failed to provide that ferry service, it promised to reimburse the cost of the tickets to its customers. Balearia Cancelled Ferry Services On March 17, 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Balearia cancelled its passenger ferry services, effective March 23, 2020. Yet, notwithstanding that it had collected money from customers for ferry services that it then cancelled, Balearia has refused to reimburse customers for tickets they had purchased. Instead, Balearia has kept the money, in violation of the terms and conditions of its own contract with its customers. Balearia Altered the Terms on its Website and Denied Refunds Shortly after announcing that it discontinued its ferry service, Balearia altered its website to reflect different terms and conditions. Rather than promising refunds for cancelled ferry services, Balearia now offered a "New Flexible Pricing Policy," which included replacing cancelled ferry tickets with a ticket for ferry service on a later date. So, rather than honor its commitment to reimburse its customers, Balearia kept its customers' money and instead offered the opportunity to apply funds to ferry service on different dates and times than the customers had selected. Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A believes that when Balearia unilaterally changed the deal to benefit itself at the expense of its customers Balearia not only violated its own terms and conditions, but also acted in a deceptive, unfair, and unjust manner -- particularly in this challenging economic environment. Customers Potentially Affected by this Lawsuit DKR's class action lawsuit seeks damages for all individuals and entities that purchased tickets from Balearia prior to March 16, 2020 for ferry services scheduled to depart on March 23, 2020 or later at a date and time certain, but which ferry services were not provided on the agreed-upon date and time. If class certification is granted, DKR expects there to be thousands of potential class members. Class certification would allow customers to whom Balearia has refused to provide refunds to benefit from DKR's lawsuit and avoid the time and cost of pursuing their own individual lawsuits. Stay tuned for regular updates. We will continue to post here as the case progresses. Contact a Class Action Attorney Today If Balearia cancelled your ferry service and has refused to reimburse you for the ticket that you purchased, contact Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. to discuss your rights. With offices in Miami, Los Angeles, West Palm Beach, Naples, New York, and Detroit, DKR represents clients nationwide and throughout Latin America. David A. Rothstein, Esq. 2665 S. Bayshore Drive Penthouse 2B Miami, Florida 33133 Tel No: (888) 578-6255 E-mail: drothstein@dkrpa.com [GN] BASF SE: Agrees to Settle Talc Class Action Lawsuit for $72 Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Bellon at Reuters reports that German chemical company BASF SE agreed to pay $72.5 million to settle a class action fraud lawsuit over allegations its talc contained asbestos and caused lung injuries and cancer, court documents showed. Under the agreement, compensation from the settlement fund can be received by those who filed a lawsuit against the company between March 1984 and March 2011 over asbestos-related injuries, but had their lawsuit dismissed or voluntarily dismissed it. The settlement still has to be approved by a judge. BASF does not admit any wrongdoing and maintains the allegations against it are unfounded and not true, according to the filing in New Jersey federal court in Trenton. The BASF litigation is separate from the roughly 19,400 talc lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson over allegations that asbestos in its talc powders causes cancer. J&J denies the allegations, saying its talc products are safe.[GN] BAYER AG: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 14 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on July 20 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Bayer Aktiengesellschaft ("Bayer" or "the Company") (OTC PINK:BAYRY, BAYZF) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 23, 2016 and March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before September 14, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Bayer failed to disclose that the acquisition of Monsanto would cause the Company to suffer from exposure to massive judgements and reputational damage if lawsuits related to Monsanto's Roundup product were successful. The Company's positive statements about the prospects of the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create were false. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements throughout the class period were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Bayer, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a national investors rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Bayer Aktiengesellschaft ("Bayer" or the "Company") (OTC: BAYRY) American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 23, 2016 and March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Bayer investors have until September 14, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your Bayer investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/bayer-aktiengesellschaft/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. In June 2018, Bayer acquired Monsanto Company ("Monsanto"), a provider of agricultural chemicals and other products. On August 10, 2018, a jury found that Monsanto must pay $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages, finding found that its Roundup weed killer was a "substantial factor" in causing the plaintiff to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and that Monsanto knew, or should have known, the risks associated with exposure to the chemical and failed to warn of this severe health hazard. On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.00, or 11%, to close at $23.59 per share on August 13, 2018. Then, on March 19, 2019, another jury issued a verdict on causation, finding that plaintiff's "exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.82, or 9%, to close at $17.85 per share on March 20, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the acquisition of Monsanto would cause the Company to suffer from exposure to massive judgements and reputational damage if lawsuits related to Monsanto's Roundup product were successful; (2) that the Company's positive statements about the prospects of the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create were false; (3) as a result, the Company's public statements throughout the class period were false and materially misleading. If you purchased Bayer ADR's during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 14, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Gross Law Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. Shareholders who purchased shares in the Company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTCPINK:BAYRY) Lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May 23, 2016 and March 19, 2019. A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) following its acquisition of Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at risk of suffering billions of dollars in judgments and reputational damage if the lawsuits brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure to its glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were successful, 2) a result, Defendants' positive statements about the prospects of the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create for Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form/?id=8159&from=1. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BETHLEHEM LANDFILL: 3rd Cir. Revives Class Action Odor Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria C. Salvemini, Esq.--msalvemini@mankogold.com--of Manko Gold Katcher & Fox, in an article for Lexology, reports that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion reversing the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's decision granting a Motion to Dismiss a complaint filed by homeowners concerning alleged odors and air contaminants emanating from the Bethlehem landfill, thus reviving the case. Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co., No. 19-1692, slip op. (3d. Cir. July 13, 2020). In doing so, the Court found that a class of Pennsylvania homeowners allegedly affected by landfill odors may bring suit under theories of negligence, public nuisance and private nuisance. Robin and Dexter Baptiste, the named plaintiffs, live near Bethlehem Landfill Company's 224-acre solid waste disposal facility and landfill. In 2018, the Baptistes sued Bethlehem alleging that Bethlehem is not operating its landfill in accordance with the Solid Waste Management Act and industry standards, resulting in odors and other air contaminants that negatively impact the class's use and enjoyment of their homes and cause a loss in property value. The complaint asserted claims under Pennsylvania common-law for public nuisance, private nuisance, and negligence on behalf of a punitive class of homeowner-occupants and renters in 8,400 households within a 2.5-mile radius of the landfill, claiming property damages in excess of $5 million and seeking both injunctive and punitive relief. Bethlehem moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion, finding that too many residents were similarly affected to bring a private claim for public nuisance, the alleged odors impacted too many people and the landfill was too far away to constitute a private nuisance, and the plaintiffs failed to identify a duty of care to sustain a negligence claim. The court also dismissed the Baptistes' request for punitive and injunctive relief. The Baptistes appealed. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case. First, the Third Circuit addressed the Baptistes' nuisance claims, noting that "[c]ommon-law nuisance is a notoriously perplexing and unruly doctrine, seeming to defy all efforts to draw bright lines around it." Id. at 10. The Baptistes argued that the District Court misapplied Pennsylvania law and erroneously imposed restrictions on their nuisance claims. Bethlehem contended, however, that dismissal was proper because the Baptistes alleged a "mass nuisance" for which there is no private right of action but, rather, is addressed through the Commonwealth's regulatory power. Turning first to the Baptistes' private claim for public nuisance, the Third Circuit noted that there was no dispute that the Baptistes alleged the existence of public nuisance, however, the question at issue was whether the Baptistes properly pleaded a private claim for public nuisance. To do this, they had to allege that they suffered a harm of greater magnitude and of a different kind than that suffered by the general public. The Third Circuit found that they did. The Baptistes, the court explained, are seeking to "vindicate their right to use and enjoy their home and obtain the full value of their property--personal rights that are qualitatively different . . . than the general, non-possessory right to clean air held in common with the community at large." Id. at 14. Further, the Third Circuit emphasized that the harms that the Baptistes identified—such as inability to use their swimming pools, porches, and yards--are unique to them and the other members of the class and the injuries they alleged exceed any injury suffered by the public "because they involve private property damages that the public at large has not endured." Id. Accordingly, the court held that the Baptistes properly alleged a private claim for public nuisance and found that the District Court's dismissal of the claim on the basis that the odors impacted too many people for the Baptistes to claim a special harm was unsupported by Pennsylvania law. Addressing the private nuisance claim, the Third Circuit found that the District Court likewise erred in dismissing the claim because of the number of people impacted. The court emphasized that private and public nuisance claims are not mutually exclusive and explained that the main difference between them is not the number of people harmed but the nature of the impacted right: "a public nuisance requires interference with common or pubic rights, while a private nuisance requires only interference with personal or private rights." Id. at 18 (emphasis in original). Moreover, the Third Circuit found that the District Court also erred in dismissing the private nuisance claim on the basis that the Baptistes' home was too far from the landfill to qualify as a neighboring property for purposes of bringing a private nuisance claim. Not only did the Third Circuit find that there was there no support under Pennsylvania law for this, but the Supreme Court case that the District Court relied on did not hold that a property could not bring a nuisance claim based on its proximity to the nuisance nor had any other Pennsylvania cases. Thus, the court held that the Baptistes properly alleged a private nuisance claim. The Third Circuit also addressed and rejected Bethlehem's "mass nuisance" theory that when too many people complain about the same specific harm they lose their right to bring a private action to remedy that injury and must instead rely on the government to do so. Finding no Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision addressing whether there is a limit on the number of plaintiffs that can recover private property damages on a nuisance theory, the court applied Pennsylvania law to determine how the highest court would decide the case. The Third Circuit found "no reason to depart from longstanding principles that allow individuals to recover private property damages caused by widespread nuisances, especially where, as here, the number of plaintiffs is not so large as to be 'indeterminate,'. . . but rather is defined and limited to homeowner-occupants and renters within a 2.5-mile radius from the landfill." Id. at 27. The Third Circuit cautioned that "[t]o adopt Bethlehem's novel position would produce the anomalous result of penalizing small polluters while exempting larger polluters from the same liability. We decline to take that step without a clear directive from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court." Id. Finally, the court addressed the negligence claim. The Baptistes argued that Bethlehem owes it a common-law duty of care. While Bethlehem conceded that it owes such a duty, it took the position that the duty was to protect others against unreasonable risk of physical harm, not nuisances like odors. Because it was undisputed that Bethlehem owes a common-law duty to the plaintiffs, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal of the negligence claim. The question remained, however, as to whether the Baptistes sufficiently pled a cognizable injury to assert an independent negligence claim. The Third Circuit declined to address this question for the first time on appeal and decided to defer to the District Court to determine whether to consider the question of physical injury on remand. While the Third Circuit's decision does not indicate whether the Baptistes will ultimately prevail on their common law nuisance and negligence claims, the court's reversal and remand has provided the plaintiffs with an opportunity to make their case. Industry members should keep a close eye as the litigation against Bethlehem proceeds and shapes private parties' rights to recover for harms allegedly suffered because of noxious odors. [GN] BHP: Says UK Class Action Over Brazil Dam Failure "Pointless" ------------------------------------------------------------- Kirstin Ridley and Zandi Shabalala, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, report that Anglo-Australian miner BHP has dismissed as pointless and wasteful a GBP5 billion (US$8.9 billion) English lawsuit by 200,000 Brazilian individuals and groups over the 2015 collapse of a dam that triggered Brazil's worst environmental disaster. Kicking off an eight-day hearing in Manchester, northern England, BHP on July 22 called for the record group action to be struck out or suspended, alleging it duplicated Brazilian proceedings and victims were already receiving redress. ". . . the attempt to export and duplicate the work being done in Brazil, including the litigation, to England, is pointless and wasteful," BHP said in legal documents. The claimants are due to lay out their arguments on July 20 in the latest jurisdictional battle to establish whether London-listed multinationals can face trial in England over the actions of their foreign divisions. Charles Gibson, a lawyer for BHP, told the court Brazil had a sophisticated and fair justice system that provided access to timely justice. "One has to be quite cautious before casting stones at other systems of justice," he said. The judge is expected to reserve judgment until around September. If shown the green light, further trials could determine liability and quantify damages. The collapse of the Fundao dam, which stored mining waste and is owned by the Samarco joint-venture between BHP and Brazilian iron ore mining giant Vale, killed 19 and poured roughly 50 million cubic metres of mining waste into communities, the Rio Doce river and Atlantic Ocean, 650 km away. Claimants allege BHP, the world's largest miner by market value, ignored safety warnings as the dam's capacity was repeatedly increased by raising its height -- and disregarded cracks that were early signs of rupture. Many claimants are seeking compensation for physical and psychological injury, property damage, moving costs, loss of earnings, loss of water supply and lost fishing income. BHP says the Renova Foundation, a redress scheme established in 2016 by its Brazilian division, Samarco and Vale, has spent around GBP1.3 billion on projects such as monthly emergency financial aid to about 130 indigenous Krenak families, rebuilding three villages and establishing alternative water supply systems. It also alleges almost 100,000 of the claimants have already received payments from Renova and only 58 of the individuals, businesses, municipalities, churches, utility companies and indigenous people bringing the claim in England are not part of Brazilian class actions. Claimants allege it is wrong to suggest victims are entitled to full redress in Brazil because Renova lacks independence and its compensation scheme is slow, bureaucratic, inadequate and has not properly involved victims in decision-making. They allege BHP is responsible for the dam's collapse, liable for its "catastrophic consequences" under Brazilian law but that victims have no prospect of proper compensation in Brazil within any reasonable timeframe. Samarco, Vale and BHP Brasil face a raft of lawsuits in Brazil over the disaster, including a 155billion real ($42 billion) class action filed by federal prosecutors which, BHP alleges, overlaps "almost entirely" with the English case. The Brazilian class action has been suspended, although the parties aim to negotiate a settlement by around August 2022. [GN] BOYD GAMING: James Seeks to Certify 2 Classes in Tip Credit Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION and KANSAS STAR CASINO, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02260-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying the Unlawful Tip Credit Notice Collective and Unlawful Tip Pool Collective. The Unlawful Tip Credit Notice Collective is defined as: "all persons employed at a relevant Boyd Gaming casino during the relevant time period and paid a base hourly wage of less than the applicable federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour." The Unlawful Tip Pool Collective is defined as: "all persons employed as a table games dealer and included within a tip pooling arrangement at a relevant Boyd Gaming casino during the relevant time period." The Plaintiff further asks the Court for an Order: -- directing the Defendants, within 10 days of the Court's Order conditionally certifying these collectives, to provide the Plaintiff for each casino at issue an electronic spreadsheet containing the full name, employee ID, position(s), dates of employment, and all available contact information (including last known address, telephone number(s) and email address) of each member of the conditionally certified collectives. -- directing the parties to confer and agree on a proper notice, consent-to-join form, and email/text message to collective members that are consistent with the Court's Order. -- directing the parties, no later than 14 days from the Court's Order, to submit such agreed forms to the Court for approval. Boyd Gaming Corporation is an American gaming and hospitality company based in Paradise, Nevada. The company continues to be run by founder Sam Boyd's family under the management of Sam's son, Bill Boyd, who currently serves as the company's executive chairman after retiring as CEO in January 2008. Kansas Star was founded in 2010. The company's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. McGuire, Esq. George A. Hanson, Esq. Todd M. McGuire, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com mcguire@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Rejuso Appeals Callahan Suit Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Intervenor Nina Rejuso filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10726-VAP-SS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged employment discriminatory practices. The appellate case is captioned as Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55750, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Nina Rejuso's opening brief is due on September 25, 2020; -- Appellees BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC, BKD Twenty-One Management Company, Inc., Brookdale Employee Services Corporate, LLC, Brookdale Employee Services, LLC, Brookdale Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Brookdale Vehicle Holding, LLC, Carolyn D. Callahan, Does, Emeritus Corporation and Summerville at Atherton Court, LLC's answering brief is due on October 26, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Movant-Appellant NINA REJUSO, Proposed Intervenor, is represented by: Neil M. Larsen, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 E-mail: nlarsen@maternlawgroup.com Plaintiff-Appellee CAROLYN D. CALLAHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andranik Tsarukyan, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: andy.tsarukyan@jacksonlewis.com - and - Armen Zenjiryan, Esq. REMEDY LAW GROUP LLP 610 East Providencia Avenue Burbank, CA 91501-2495 Telephone: (818) 422-5941 E-mail: armen@remedylawgroup.com Defendants-Appellees BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation, BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES CORPORATE, LLC, a Delaware corporation, SUMMERVILLE AT ATHERTON COURT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, BROOKDALE VEHICLE HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, BKD PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, EMERITUS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, BKD TWENTY-ONE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, and BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Shannon Rea Boyce, Esq. John Kevin Lilly, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-7304 E-mail: sboyce@littler.com klilly@littler.com - and - Jeffrey Joseph Mann, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 E-mail: jmann@littler.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: BKD) between August 10, 2016 and April 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To join the class action, http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=brookdale-senior-living-inc&id=2287 call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period (1) Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's purposeful under staffing of its senior living communities; (2) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation; (3) as a result, the Company's financial results were unsustainable; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BRUNSWICK BOWLING: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brunswick Bowling Products, LLC. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brunswick Bowling Products, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05822-PAE (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brunswick Bowling Products, LLC, manufactures and distributes bowling equipment. The Company offers masking units, pinsetters, pins, shoes, house balls, apparels, bags, gloves, tapes, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BUDDI US LLC: S.C. Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned S.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BUDDI US LLC, BUDDI LTD, MONITORING PARTNERS LIMITED, Case No. 30-02020-01143611, was removed from Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 27, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-01370 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Charleston Southern University is a Southern Baptist university in North Charleston, South Carolina. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Valeria Granata, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDERLMAN AND DICKER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-5100 Fax: (213) 443-5101 Email: valeria.granata@wilsonelser.com C.L. KNOX: Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment Against Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maeve Allsup, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a class of California workers who cleaned and maintained oil tanks lost their bid to regain the unpaid wages they alleged they were owed, after a state appeals court affirmed summary judgment against them. Workers filed three suits against C.L. Knox Inc., doing business in southern California as Advanced Industrial Services, and the suits were consolidated into a single class action. Class members included all individuals who worked for AIS as nonexempt and contracted employees who attended regular safety meetings from 2009 onward. The class alleged the safety meetings, held once a month at around 5:15 a.m., were mandatory. [GN] CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Vaught Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as SHARON ANN VAUGHT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP, Case No. 2:20-cv-01105-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com CARNIVAL CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm encourages investors with losses of $1,000,000 or more to seek an active role in the class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Carnival Corporation (NYSE: CCL; CUK) investors. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to comply with appropriate COVID-19 safety measures on board Carnival cruises, thereby jeopardizing passenger and employee safety, and exposing the Company to large regulatory and litigation risk. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors on a contingency basis in recovering their losses caused by the Company's alleged fraudulent statements and corporate misconduct. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone or text 310-692-8883 or email--lesley@portnoylaw.com--to discuss their legal rights, or here via www.portnoylaw.com. In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus, COVID-19, was first reported in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. COVID-19 quickly spread to numerous countries and has since been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. Carnival launched several cruise ships in early 2020, putting tens of thousands of passengers and crew at serious risk and turned Carnival's ships into vessels for seeding the virus across the globe. On January 27, 2020, as COVID-19 spread beyond China, Carnival, however, claimed that the risks of COVID-19 posed to the company's guests, crew, and global business were "very low." Carnival continued to double-down on its statements of "low risk" throughout the next two months by permitting cruises to continue (except those traveling to and from China or where quarantined by authorities) in the face of mounting cruise passenger illnesses and deaths on its own ships due to COVID-19, or soon after disembarking its own ships. On February 3, 2020, just a few days after Carnival reiterated that COVID-19 was "very low" risk to Carnival's guests, crew, and business, Carnival admitted that a passenger who had been onboard its Diamond Princess ship, from January 20, 2020, through January 25, 2020, had tested positive for COVID-19. This diagnosis caused Japanese authorities to conduct a review of all guests and crew as the ship was docked in Yokohama, Japan, causing a delay in the next leg of the ship's journey. On this news, the price of Carnival's common stock declined $0.78 per share, or approximately 2%, from a close of $43.53 per share on January 31, 2020, to close at $42.75 per share on February 3, 2020. Similarly, the price of Carnival's ADSs declined $0.45 per share, or 1.1%, from a close of $41.10 per ADS on January 31, 2020, to close at $40.65 per ADS on February 3, 2020. Investors began to learn the truth about Carnival's prior false and misleading statements through a series of additional disclosures to the market during the Class Period (on March 4, 2020, March 8, 2020, March 27, 2020, and April 16, 2020). Finally, on May 1, 2020, and as a result of the many outbreaks on Carnival ships, as well as reporting that exposed the effects of Carnival's actions and inactions, the United States House of Representatives opened an investigation into Carnival's handling of COVID-19, initiated by a letter addressed to Carnival's Chief Executive Officer requesting records regarding Carnival's COVID-19 response (the "Congressional Letter"). The Congressional Letter, which cited prior outbreaks, stated that the request for records was based on concerns that Carnival was "ignoring the public health threat posed by coronavirus to potential future passengers and crew," and that "officials at Carnival were aware of the threats to some of its ships and did not take appropriate actions, which may have led to greater infections and the spread of the disease." On this news, the price of Carnival's common stock declined $1.97 per share, or 12.4%, from a close of $15.90 per share on April 30, 2020, to close at $13.93 per share on May 1, 2020. Similarly, the price of Carnival's ADSs declined $1.49 per ADS, or 10.7%, from a close of $13.92 per ADS on April 30, 2020, to close at $12.43 per ADS on May 1, 2020. As a result of the revelation of the truth about Carnival's inability and unwillingness to deal with the spread of infectious diseases on its ships, Carnival investors who purchased shares on U.S. exchanges lost billions of dollars when Carnival's shares declined following the corrective revelations. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN] CARNIVAL PLC: Faces Class Action Over Covid-19 Outbreak ------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Thomas and Ainslie Drewitt-Smith at abc.net.au reports that eight hundred people have joined a class action against the operators of the Ruby Princess over its "misleading and deceptive" conduct surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak in March. The ship, which docked in Sydney on March 19, became one of Australia's biggest sources of coronavirus infections after 2,647 passengers were allowed to disembark, despite some passengers on board having symptoms of "influenza-like illness," according to abc.net.au. Hundreds of people have since been diagnosed as confirmed COVID-19 cases, with more than 20 deaths. Shine Lawyers has now launched a claim against operators Carnival Plc and Princess Cruise Lines Ltd and is seeking damages through the Federal Court of Australia. Lawyers claim that the company breached consumer guarantees and were negligent and failed in their duty of care. Shine Lawyers said the behaviour of the operators had been "misleading and deceptive". Class actions practice lawyer Vicky Antzoulatos said passengers were not told of the risks on board. "We say both of those companies had responsibilities to the passengers and failed to take the appropriate steps to keep them safe," she said. "It's been a tragedy listening to the stories of these passengers. "Many of them were in intensive care for months, on ventilators for months, really on death's door, some of them." The ship left Sydney on March 8 despite several passengers on a previous cruise reporting illness including high temperatures. All passengers who travelled on the March 8 cruise, as well as relatives who suffered "psychiatric injury" as a result of the outcome, are eligible to join the class action. One passenger who has joined the case is Graeme Lake, who wife, Karla, died from COVID-19 10 days after returning home from the cruise. "It broke me, it broke the kids, and she didn't deserve it," Mr Lake said. "Karla went on that cruise to celebrate her 75th birthday and what happened to her has destroyed us. "I am doing everything I can to get justice." A spokesman for Princess Cruises said: "We have the utmost respect for our guests and understand the worldwide impact of COVID-19 including on some of our guests, crew members and their families. "The NSW Special Commission of Inquiry, in which we are participating, is in the process of establishing the facts in relation to Ruby Princess. "It is not our intention to respond to the assertions of class action lawyers." The special commission was established in April and is expected to deliver its findings next month.[GN] CARSON CITY, MI: Hurst Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rewerts, et al. The case is styled as Antonio Hurst, Oliver Plair, Jerald James, Dwayne E. Howell, Curtis Bragg, Isaac Philpot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Randee Rewerts, Warden; Heidi Washington, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections; Respondents, Case No. 1:20-cv-00680-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich., July 24, 2020). The Plaintiffs file with the Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Randee Rewerts is the warden of Carson City Correctional Facility. The Petitioners, who are currently incarcerated at the Carson City Correctional Facility, in Carson City, Michigan, appear pro se.[BN] CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 18 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE: CSPR) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about February 7, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering") of the important August 18, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the federal securities class action first filed by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Casper investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Casper class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the Offering Documents contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than growing; (2) Casper was changing an important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) Casper was holding a glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability; (4) Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of reach; (5) Casper's core operations were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over $40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 18, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] CENTENE CORP: Oct. 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set in Sanchez ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ISRAEL SANCHEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTENE CORP., MICHAEL F. NEIDORFF, and JEFFREY A. SCHWANEKE, Defendants Case No. 4:17-cv-00806-AGF SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES This notice is for all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Centene Corporation ("Centene") during the period from May 24, 2016 through July 25, 2016, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), available at www.CenteneSecuritiesLitigation.com. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the "Court"), that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $7,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on October 26, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Courtroom 12 South, Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, MO 63102, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 5, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to a payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Centene Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91364, Seattle, WA 98111; 888-964-0670; or info@CenteneSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Stipulation of Settlement, Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, http:///www.CenteneSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than October 13, 2020. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action (including the releases provided therein). If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action (including the releases provided therein). If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 5, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than October 5, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Centene Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91364 Seattle, WA 98111 888-964-0670 www.CenteneSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI [GN] CHARLESTON SOUTHERN: Taylor Suit Moved to Dist. of South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jessica Taylor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Charleston Southern University, Case No. 2020-CP-10-02357, was removed from the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Charleston County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 24, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02731-BHH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Charleston Southern University is a Southern Baptist university in North Charleston, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Slavin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA E SALVIN 746 Wakendaw Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 619-7338 Fax: (888) 246-8914 Email: josh@attorneycarolina.com The Defendant is represented by: Wilbur Eugene Johnson, Esq. YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS PO Box 993 Charleston, SC 29402 Phone: (843) 577-4000 Fax: (843) 724-6600 Email: wjohnson@ycrlaw.com CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kaskela Law Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. ("Chembio") (NASDAQ:CEMI) on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Chembio's common stock between April 1, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Chembio investors who suffered investment losses in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 – 1585, or online at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/chembio-diagnostics-inc/,for additional information about this action and their legal rights and options. As detailed in the complaint, on June 16, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press release disclosing that it had revoked Chembio's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Company's DPP COVID-19 Igm/IgG System "due to performance concerns with the accuracy of the test," and because "data submitted by Chembio as well as an independent evaluation of the Chembio test at NCI showed that this test generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device." Following this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $6.04 per share, or over 60% in value, to close on June 17, 2020 at $3.89 per share. IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Chembio's common stock during the Class Period may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Tel: (484) 258 – 1585 (888) 715 – 1740 E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN] CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CEMI) ("Chembio") investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Chembio common stock between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Chembio common stock during the Class Period may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please click https://www.ktmc.com/chembio-diagnostics-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=chembio. According to the complaint, Chembio develops diagnostic solutions and offers products for treatment, detection, and diagnosis of infectious diseases. Chembio claims to have developed and patented a new and innovative technology called the Dual Path Platform ("DPP(R)"), which allows for rapid diagnostic testing of a variety of chemical substances. On its website, Chembio maintains that its products "meet the highest standards for accuracy and superior performance to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases" and that its "innovative solutions, like the Chembio Dual Path Platform (DPP(R)), make [point-of-care] testing faster, more accurate, and more cost effective." On March 12, 2020, Chembio entered into a worldwide strategic partnership with LumiraDx Limited, a company focused on developing, manufacturing, and commercializing industry-leading point-of-care diagnostic platforms, with the aim of developing a diagnostic test for the detection of the COVID-19 virus and IgM and IgG antibodies on both of their DPP(R) platforms (the "DPP COVID-19 Test"). Following this news, Chembio's shares jumped 65% during pre-market trading. Throughout the Class Period, the defendants touted their progress in developing the DPP COVID-19 Test, representing that it: (i) successfully aided in determining current or past exposure to the COVID-19 virus; (ii) provided high sensitivity and specificity; and (iii) was 100% accurate. The defendants' overly positive progress updates convinced some entities to place purchase orders for the DPP COVID-19 Tests worth millions of dollars. These events further boosted the price of Chembio shares, including on March 20, 2020, when Chembio's shares rose 54%. Chembio's representations ultimately drove its stock from a closing price of $3.10 per share on March 11, 2020, to a Class Period high of $15.54 per share on April 24, 2020, an increase of more than 400%. The complaint alleges that, on June 16, 2020, after the market closed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a press release disclosing that it had revoked Chembio's Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") for its DPP COVID-19 Test. In a public announcement, the FDA informed that its decision was "due to performance concerns with the accuracy of the test." More specifically, the FDA informed that the DPP COVID-19 Test "generate[d] a higher than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device." As a result, the FDA concluded that the "test's benefits no longer outweigh its risks." The next day, on June 17, 2020, Chembio publicly acknowledged the receipt of the FDA's June 16, 2020 letter and informed the public of the FDA's revocation of its EUA. Following this news, Chembio shares declined from a closing price on June 16, 2020 of $9.93 per share to close at $3.89 per share on June 17, 2020, a decline of more than 60%. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Chembio's DPP COVID-19 Test did not provide high-quality results and there were material performance concerns with the accuracy of its DPP COVID-19 Test. If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. Chembio investors may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 877-9500 (toll free) (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Settles Class Action Over Impounded Vehicles --------------------------------------------------------- Todd Feurer, writing for CBS Chicago, reports that Aldermen have approved significant changes to Chicago's vehicle impoundment program, reducing the fines and fees motorists must pay when their vehicles are seized by police, and scaling back the number of reasons police can impound a vehicle in the first place. The ordinance rolls back impoundment fines and fees that were doubled by Mayor Rahm Emanuel in 2011, in an effort to generate $14 million in new revenue. However, the Lightfoot administration said that effort failed, as revenue from vehicle impoundments actually decreased over the past decade, because many owners couldn't afford to pay to get their cars back. The measure also would cap the storage fees charged to motorists whose cars have been seized at $1,000. Previously, those fees could add up to tens of thousands of dollars, often resulting in some motorists essentially abandoning their cars once they were seized, because they couldn't afford the cost to get them back. "No city should be able to hoard and profit form the personal property of its residents just because they can't afford to pay, and no city should be taking away its residents' ability to get back and forth to work or school," Lightfoot said after the July 22 vote. The city also will end the practice of charging storage fees to motorists who are unable to redeem their vehicles after they've been seized by the Chicago Police Department, and end the practice of automatically impounding the vehicles of people caught driving on a suspended license if the suspension was solely the result of unpaid parking tickets. Motorists would be granted an "innocent owner" defense if their vehicle was impounded while it was being used without their knowledge, or if they can prove it shouldn't have been seized in the first place. The city also would no longer impound vehicles for many non-driving and non-safety-related offenses; including illegal possession of fireworks, possession of spray paint, or for playing loud music. At the same time, the City Council also approved a $4.95 million payout to settle a federal class action lawsuit that claims police have routinely refused to release impounded vehicles even when they should have, and even pressured lenders to repossess the cars, despite their owners being entitled to get them back. The lawsuit was filed by three vehicle owners whose cars were seized when passengers, or someone else driving the owner's vehicle, were arrested on drug charges. According to the lawsuit, in each case, the drug charges were either dropped altogether, or reduced to misdemeanors, meaning the owners should have been entitled to get their cars back from the city pound, and a refund of any fees they'd paid. Instead, in each case, the city repeatedly refused to release their vehicles, and even contacted lenders to pressure them to repossess the cars, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the three specific cases cited were not isolated incidents, but examples of a city policy to continue impounding vehicles that have been seized in drug arrests, even after charges are dropped, or reduced to misdemeanors. A federal judge approved class action status for the lawsuit, including approximately 356 vehicles impounded under similar circumstances. Under terms of the settlement, plaintiffs will split a pot of $3.27 million, while $1.66 million will go to attorneys' fees. The three original plaintiffs in the case will each receive a $5,000 "incentive payment," and another $15,158 will go to a "claims administration fee." Each plaintiff will be entitled to the Kelley Blue Book value of their vehicle at the time it was impounded, with an average of $9,891.66 per vehicle, according to the city's Law Department. In other City Council business on July 22, aldermen approved: * A six-month extension of a temporary moratorium on all building demolitions in an area near the popular 606 trail. The existing moratorium was set to expire Aug. 1, but Ald. Roberto Maldonado (26th) said aldermen and the city's Law Department need more time to craft a more permanent plan for addressing gentrification along the 606. * A measure to require landlords to give long-term tenants up to four months' notice before terminating or not renewing their lease, or raising their rent. Supporters have said it will provide more stability to tenants by giving them more time to find a new place to live if their lease isn't renewed, or if they can't afford the rent hike. Opponents have said the ordinance will place too much of a burden on small building owners, and could exacerbate a looming foreclosure crisis without more protections for small landlords. * Changes to the city's contracts with the unions representing police captains, lieutenants, and sergeants, including a provision to allow for civilians to file anonymous complaints against police supervisors. The mayor has said she will fight for similar changes in the contract with the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents rank-and-file officers. * An ordinance to temporarily lift restrictions on night games on Fridays and Saturdays at Wrigley Field, to allow the Chicago Cubs to host six Friday night games and five Saturday night games during the shortened 60-game season this year. For years, the Cubs have been limited to only three Saturday night games a year, and no Friday night games. Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) and the Cubs have said the agreement for more night games will apply only to the 2020 season. * An ordinance to overhaul the approval process for implosion permits for building demolitions, including a mandate for a public meeting and notification of nearby residents beforehand. The changes were spurred by the botched implosion of a smokestack in Little Village in April, which sent a cloud of dust and debris into the surrounding neighborhood. [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Settles Motorists' Class Action for $4.95 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Fran Spielman, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that Chicago taxpayers will spend nearly $5 million to compensate motorists denied due process after their vehicles were seized in connection with suspected drug-related offenses. The City Council's Finance Committee signed off on the $4.95 million settlement to resolve a class-action lawsuit filed in March 2015. Plaintiffs Brandon Fuller and Savannah Washington filed the lawsuit because their vehicle had been seized for potential forfeiture after a passenger in the car was arrested for marijuana possession. One month later, a judge found there was no probable cause for the search. The drug case was dismissed. But it still was too late for Fuller and Washington. They claim the Chicago Police Department's Asset Forfeiture Unit contacted the lienholder of the vehicle "almost immediately after" their car was impounded and "encouraged the lienholder" to repossess the vehicle. They claim to have made several attempts to recover their vehicle, to no avail. It was released to the lienholder. State law requires CPD to determine if forfeiture is warranted, then either send the vehicle to the state's attorney's office for a probable cause hearing and subsequent forfeiture hearing or release the vehicle to the owner or the lienholder. First Deputy Corporation Counsel Renai Rodney said an internal police investigation confirmed the plaintiffs' complaints about the violation of due process. In July 2015, CPD revised its vehicle release procedures to "make explicit that lienholders were not provided with any preferential treatment in the recovery of vehicles impounded for alleged drug-related offenses." "Thereafter, all vehicles seized by CPD were either submitted to the state's attorney office for a probable cause determination or released to the owner," Rodney told aldermen. Though the plaintiffs originally claimed the flawed practice impacted 22,000 vehicles, Rodney said the settlement advanced on July 20 impacts "only 356 vehicles" impounded by the city between March 28, 2013 and Aug. 1, 2015. Owners of each of those vehicles will be mailed a claim form, with a Nov. 18 deadline to return it. Under questioning by Ald. Edward Burke (14th), Rodney acknowledged one-third of the $4.95 million settlement--$1.65 million--will go to plaintiffs' attorneys. The three named plaintiffs will each receive a $5,000 "incentive payment." There's also a "claims administration fee" of $15,158. That leaves $3.27 million in the "settlement pot" to be distributed among the 356 vehicle owners. "They will be entitled to the Kelley Blue Book value of their vehicle at the time that it was seized by CPD. . . . The average value of the vehicles for which we have a fair purchase price is approximately $9,891.66," Rodney said. "The city took the position initially that the value of the vehicle should be less any amount owed to the lienholder. The plaintiff argued that the appropriate measure was the fair-market value of the vehicle when seized by CPD. The court sided with the plaintiff. So, we had to settle on accepting the fair market value of the vehicle." It's not the first time the city was forced to cough up big bucks to motorists denied due process. Former Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration was forced to pay $38.75 million in refunds to motorists denied due process after being slapped with tickets based on information from red-light and speed cameras. The same firm--Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLP--also is trying to force the city to pay similar refunds to motorists ticketed for driving while talking on cell phones. Those citations were being routed to administrative hearing officers, instead of to Traffic Court, where a pending lawsuit claims they belong. * Also on July 20, the Finance Committee debated for hours, then reluctantly signed off on a $500,000 settlement stemming from the Chicago Police Department's failure to honor a Freedom of Information request. Charles Green filed the lawsuit in November 2015 after CPD failed to respond to his request for 50 years' worth of closed complaints register files for present and former Chicago Police officers. [GN] CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of Aug. 17 Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX) between February 25, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for investors under the federal securities laws. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To join the class action, http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=co-diagnostics-inc&id=2298 call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made continual, knowing and willful misstatements about their main product, a COVID-19 diagnostic test, to pump up the price of Co-Diagnostics, Inc.'s stock while the officers and directors exercised low priced options and dumped their stock into the market. Their fraudulent misstatements, and disregard for the basic scientific principles that make their falsity of their statements clear in retrospect, caused investors to lose millions of dollars. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Amer Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MOHAMMAD AMER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. COLLECTION ASSOCIATES LTD. and BCG EQUITIES LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01104-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com COLLECTO INC: Hatcher Seeks to Certify Delaware Borrowers Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIA HATCHER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, v. COLLECTO, INC. D/B/A EOS CCA, Case No. 1:19-cv-02079-MN (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify a class defined as: "all consumers with a Delaware address that have received collection letters from the Defendant concerning debts used primarily for personal, household, or family purposes within one year prior to the filing of this Complaint, for whom the debts at issue are beyond the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint on November 1, 2019, alleging that the Defendant violated the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act banning false, deceptive, or misleading collection conduct. EOS is a debt collector that regularly collects debts incurred by Delaware consumers. During the course of its collection efforts, the Defendant sent a letter to over 1,000 Delaware consumers whose debts were passed the statute of limitations, without advising of the status of the debt yet leaving the impression that the Defendant could in fact sue the consumer, says the complaint.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad St. Suite 203C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: 862 227-3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com - and - George Pazuniak, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC 901 N. Market St., Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: 302-478-4230 E-mail: gp@del-iplaw.com COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLE WALKINSHAW, TYSHA BRYANT, APRIL ENDICOTT, HEATHER NABITY, MEGHAN MARTIN, ALANDREA ELLWANGER, TROY STAUFFER, and all other similarly situated former or current employees of Defendant, v. COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH f/k/a CATHOLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES, CHI NEBRASKA d/b/a CHI HEALTH, and SAINT ELIZABETH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 4:19-cv-03012-BCB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action defined as follows (Collective Members or Potential Opt-Ins): "all persons who are or were jointly or severally employed by CommonSpirit and/or by its predecessor Catholic Health Initiatives, CHI Health, and/or SERMC (i.e., Saint Elizabeth Regional Medical Center), as medical nurses, who were paid an hourly wage, and who were subject to the On- Call Policy respecting compensation for On-Call Work, from the date of the Court's order granting conditional certification through the present, at the following locations: CHI Health Laboratory in Omaha, Nebraska; Creighton University Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska; Good Samaritan Hospital in Kearney, Nebraska; Immanuel Hospital in Omaha, Nebraska; Lakeside Hospital in Omaha, Nebraska; CHI Health-Mercy in Corning, Iowa; Mercy Hospital in Council Bluffs, Iowa; Midlands Hospital in Papillion, Nebraska; CHI Health Missouri Valley in Harrison County, Iowa; CHI Health-Nebraska Heart in Lincoln, Nebraska; CHI Health-Plainview in Plainview, Nebraska; CHI Health in Schuyler, Nebraska; Saint Elizabeth Medical Center in Lincoln, NE; Saint Francis Hospital in Grand Island, Nebraska; and CHI Health-Saint Mary's in Otoe, Nebraska"; 2. approving the proposed Notice to Potential Opt-Ins and the Consent to Join form as to form and content; 3. approving the following Notice plan and schedule: -- 10 Days From Order Approving Notice to Potential Opt- Ins: Defendants will produce to Plaintiffs in Microsoft Excel or comparable format the names, mailing addresses, and email addresses of all Collective Members. -- 20 Days From Order Approving Notice to Potential Opt- Ins: The Court-approved Notice and Consent to Join form to Collective Members will be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and email by Plaintiffs' Counsel or the Notice Administrator. -- 60 Days From Date Notice Is Sent to Potential Opt-Ins: Collective Members will have 60 days to return their signed Consent to Join forms to Plaintiffs' counsel or the Notice Administrator for filing with the Court. -- 30 Days From Date Notice Is Sent to Potential Opt-Ins: Plaintiffs' counsel or the Notice Administrator is authorized to send by mail and email a second identical copy of the Notice and Consent to Join form to remind Collective Members of the deadline for submitting the Consent to Join form. -- Within 5 Days of Written Notice from Plaintiffs' Counsel of Undeliverable Mail: If the Notice sent to any Collective Member is returned by mail or email as undeliverable, within 5 days of written notice from Plaintiffs' counsel, Defendants shall provide for any such potential opt- in his or her most recent telephone number and date of birth and the last four digits of his or her social security number. CommonSpirit Health is the largest Catholic health system, and the second-largest nonprofit hospital chain, in the United States. It operates more than 700 care sites and 142 hospitals in 21 states. CHI Health is a faith-based regional health network.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Cheng, Esq. R. Joseph Barton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 968-8999 E-mail: vincent@blockesq.com jbarton@blockesq.com - and - Kathleen M. Neary, Esq. Vincent M. Powers, Esq. POWERS LAW 411 South 13th Street, Suite 300 Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: (402) 474-8000 E-mail: kathleen@vpowerslaw.com powerslaw@me.com The Defendants are represented by: Karen K. Cain, Esq. Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq. Emma R. Schuering, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 900 W. 48th Place, Ste. 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816)753-1000 Facsimile: (816) 753-1536 E-mail: kcain@polsinelli.com jplowman@polsinelli.com eschuering@polsinelli.com CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concordia University, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Concordia University, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05836 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Concordia University Inc. is a Lutheran higher education community committed to helping students develop in mind, body, and spirit for service to Christ in the Church and the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com CONNECTICUT: Board Appeals Order in A.R. IDEA Suit to 2nd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Connecticut State Board of Education filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated July 1, 2020, and Judgment dated July 10, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled A.R., on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Connecticut State Board of Education, Case No. 3:16-cv-01197 (CSH), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 20, 2020, District Court Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr., granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiff A.R., an individual with a disability, brings the putative class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) against Connecticut State Board of Education, alleging that the Board's enforcement of age limitations to special education established by Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 10-76d(b) and Conn. Agencies Reg. Section 10-76d-1(a)(4) violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). Defendant Connecticut State Board of Education maintains "general supervision and control" of elementary and secondary education, special education, and adult education in the state of Connecticut. As the educational agency responsible for general supervision of special education in Connecticut, the Board is also responsible for ensuring the state's compliance with the requirements of the federally enacted IDEA. Plaintiff A.R. is an individual with a disability who turned 21 years old on April 7, 2020. In November 2014, A.R. began receiving special education from West Hartford Public School district. Due to various disability-related issues, A.R. was able to earn only 5.625 credits towards her high school diploma by November 2017. Since then, A.R. has been earning additional credits at Options Employment and Education Services, LLC. Nevertheless, A.R. anticipates that she will not be able to earn the credits needed to receive her high school diploma before her eligibility for special education terminates in June 2020, at the end of the school year during which A.R. turns 21. A.R.'s eligibility to receive special education will terminate pursuant to Connecticut statute and regulations, which provide that a child with a disability, who turns 21 during the school year, is entitled to receive special education only until the end of that school year. A.R. contends that the Board's enforcement of this age limitation violates the IDEA, which obligates a state to provide a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities until the age of 22 if the state also provides public education to non-disabled persons of the same age. She asserts that, because the Board generally provides public education to non-disabled persons regardless of their age, the Board must also provide special education to individuals with disabilities between ages of 21 and 22. The appellate case is captioned as A.R. v. Connecticut State Board of Education, Case No. 20-2255, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee A. R., on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, is represented by: Jason H. Kim, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421−7100 Facsimile: (415) 421−7105 E-mail: jkim@schneiderwallace.com - and - Nancy B. Alisberg, Esq. Catherine E. Cushman, Esq. Kasey Considine, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CONNECTICUT 846 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Telephone: (860) 990−0175 Facsimile: (860) 296−0055 E-mail: nancy.alisberg@disrightsct.org catherine.cushman@disrightsct.org kasey.considine@disrightsct.org - and - Sonja Deyoe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE 395 Smith St. Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 864−5877 Facsimile: (401) 354−7464 E-mail: sldeyoe@gmail.com Defendant-Appellant Connecticut State Board of Education is represented by: Darren P. Cunningham, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 808−5074 Facsimile: (860) 808−5385 E-mail: darren.cunningham@ct.gov - and - Ralph E. Urban, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 Telephone: (860) 808−5210 Facsimile: (860) 808−5385 E-mail: ralph.urban@ct.gov CONNECTICUT: Corrigan COVID-19 Class Action Settlement Not Enough ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelan Lyons, writing for The CT Mirror, reports that Bennie Gray Jr. wrote a letter to the Yale Prison Education Initiative on April 24 about how the pandemic has affected the quality of life at Corrigan Correctional Center. Shortly thereafter, he was placed in the COVID-19 quarantine unit, despite two negative test results. "After 14 days of inhaling COVID-19 aerosols, being housed with no shower, no way to clean my cell, and no phone privileges, I was released back to population only to fall ill days later from the exposure period I was in the COVID-19 quarantine unit," he said, calculating that he had been quarantined for a total of 28 days. He said he was isolated "to shut me up," so his concerns about the conditions of his confinement wouldn't make their way beyond the prison's thick walls and barbed wire fences. Gray recounted the experience in a court document filed in response to the proposed agreement between the state and the ACLU of Connecticut to resolve a class-action lawsuit about the way the incarcerated population here has been treated during the pandemic. Every inmate in Department of Correction facilities received a two-page document in June informing them of the settlement's terms. They were given until July 13 to submit objections or comments. About 75 of Connecticut's approximately 9,800 inmates had responded as o mid-afternoon on July 14. Later that day, the ACLU filed a summary of objections they received from incarcerated members of the class action, bringing the total number of inmates who objected to the settlement to about 400. "Given the varying time it takes for mail to be received from incarcerated people, class counsel expect to receive additional responses," the ACLU wrote in the court filing. A federal judge will decide whether to accept the agreement shortly after a July 20 hearing. For the most part, the settlement as it stands now wouldn't require big changes in DOC operations. It mandates increased medical monitoring for people who test positive for coronavirus, and that facilities make their best effort to return people quarantined for COVID-19 to their prior housing, jobs and programs. The DOC would also have to provide inmates cleaning materials and personal protective equipment. Additionally, the settlement would require the agency to: provide a minimum level of daily cleaning, allow people to shower at least every other day and fast-track elderly or medically vulnerable inmates for release. And it would create of a five-member panel to monitor compliance. In a previous version of the settlement, panel reports would be sealed, but an amended agreement filed on June 26 made them public. But Gray said the agreement does not do enough to protect inmates from being quarantined as punishment. He has not been given a written explanation as to why he was put in quarantine in early May, and he said in his written response that the settlement should require the DOC to provide incident reports that explain why they placed inmates in quarantine. Dwayne Johnson, Gray's cell mate, agreed. Johnson was also sent to Corrigan's quarantine unit after officials intercepted Gray's letter to Yale, he claimed in his objection. Johnson wound up contracting the virus, and was sent to Northern Correctional Institution, the state's most secure prison, that has a unit specifically designated for inmates who tested positive for the virus. Currently there is only one symptomatic inmate at Northern, according to the DOC. "I became severely ill and extremely weak during my time at Northern C.I.," Johnson said. "Honestly, I thought I was going to die." Inmates want more releases in the settlement Anwar Shakir, 45, is an inmate at Brooklyn Correctional Institution. It has dormitory-style housing units that make social distancing virtually impossible. Shakir said in his written objection to that settlement that the agreement did not address that the DOC's current pandemic plan inflicts punishment that is disproportionate to the crimes for which inmates were convicted, unless that inmate was sentenced to the death penalty. But "even that statute has been abolished in the state of Connecticut," he wrote. Despite an executive order that requires corrections officers to wear masks when social distancing is not possible, Shakir said staff still refuse to wear personal protective equipment, potentially spreading the virus. Shakir called for an agreement that would release inmates who have served half or three quarters of their sentence, as well as those with underlying medical conditions or who have a credible claim of innocence pending that could reverse their conviction. Expanding the terms of release was a common sentiment among those who responded to the settlement agreement. Shawn Robinson, 50, an inmate at Northern Correctional Institution, said officials should prioritize releasing those who have served at least 30 years and have not been convicted of murder or a sexual offense. He also said inmates age 50 or older or have underlying medical conditions should be "fast tracked" for release. About one in four people held at state correctional facilities were 46 or older as of July 1. Robinson also suggested offering to pay inmates in good time credits, rather than money, for their prison jobs to shorten their sentences. Others called for changes to the DOC's use of discretionary releases. David Taylor, a 64-year-old British citizen at Osborn Correctional Institution, said he was ineligible for community release because of an immigration detainer federal authorities have on him. He said DOC should be required to grant release or treaty transfer for international inmates older than age 65 who are already facing deportation and would be subject to supervision when they're sent home. Many inmates requested to opt out of the lawsuit so they could pursue their own cases. Attorney Alex Taubes filed a lengthy list of demands on behalf of 50 incarcerated clients. He called on the state to examine its treatment of incarcerated people through a wider lens, one that acknowledges its past rights abuses. Taubes demanded that officials commit to increasing funding and oversight of the DOC's troubled health care system, and to slash funds for incarceration in half and reallocate that money to providing housing, health care and employment for the formerly incarcerated and their families. He urged the state to stop denying applications for parole, transitional supervision and halfway houses. He also insisted that correctional officers should be fined for not wearing masks, and he pushed for a grievance procedure for inmates to follow when they are victims of violence by prison officials or negligence and abuse by medical practitioners. "We humbly submit that the procedure for the negotiation of this settlement was inadequate and that the parties should return to the negotiating table with a process that includes the voices of people who are incarcerated," said Taubes. If the court does not accommodate their demands, Taubes requested his clients not be a part of the class action. A plea to resume family visits Multiple inmates mentioned in their objections how COVID-19 has made prison even more isolating. The DOC suspended family visits in March. Inmates can make two free phone calls a week, but to remain in touch with their incarcerated loved ones after they use up their free calls, families must pay some of the highest rates in the country, an expense that can be even harder to finance in a pandemic affected economy. In his objection, Bryan Jordan, 43, said the agreement must include a plan to bring back family visitation. Jordan, an inmate at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, proposed that the department resume visits by appointment only, allow for visitation rooms to be filled to 40% capacity, conduct a full cleaning in between each visit, prohibit guests from hugging their loved ones and conducting temperature checks. Jordan said his family is an integral part of his rehabilitation. Visiting with loved ones gives incarcerated people an "alternative narrative," in Jones' words, underscoring that they are "human beings who are loved, missed, and need to be included in a family structure." In a set of email responses to a query from the Connecticut Prisoner Advocacy Network, a group of people who have incarcerated family members, DOC Spokeswoman Karen Martucci said the agency had not established a timeline on when the visits can resume. "We acknowledge the importance of family connections and appreciate your patience," Martucci said, explaining the agency is considering "non contact" options for visitation, where incarcerated people and their loved ones are separated by a glass barrier, though that is not possible at all correctional facilities. "We have talked to only one state that has resumed in-person visits," Martucci said in the July 1 email. "It's complicated and we want to be sure we implement a safe practice." Jordan included in his objection a letter he sent to Gov. Ned Lamont, prison officials and local media. Noting his lengthy sentence and his ineligibility for rehabilitative programming because of his conviction--he's serving a 45-year sentence for manslaughter--Jordan said he has had to seek rehabilitation on his own terms. "Put differently, what is left for prisoners like me is the reliance on the moral support of our loved ones," he wrote. "This liberty is now gone." [GN] CSA TRAVEL: Sued for Refusing to Refund Cancelled Booking --------------------------------------------------------- Potts Law Firm on July 22 disclosed that an East Texas woman has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the company that serves as the VRBO travel website's exclusive travel insurance provider. The lawsuit alleges that CSA Travel Protection, the American affiliate of Italy-based Assicurazioni Generali Group, has refused to honor its policy and refund more than $3,500 for a cancelled booking of oceanfront property in Florida. Tralisa Sheridan, a resident of White Oak, Texas, made a reservation through VRBO in March 2019 for accommodations in Navarre, Florida, to host multiple family members for her daughter's destination beach wedding, planned for March of 2020. At the time of the booking, Ms. Sheridan paid $180 for a travel insurance coverage plan from CSA. Ms. Sheridan and the wedding party planned to drive to and from the destination, beginning on March 21, the same day Santa Rosa County officials suspended all access to Navarre's beaches. Because of this action and the prior rollout of other COVID-19 travel restrictions, including the imposition of 14-day quarantine requirements for interstate travel between Texas and Florida, Ms. Sheridan promptly notified VRBO and CSA of the need to cancel the booking and provide a refund. CSA responded by email 38 days later that the claim was being denied, and despite multiple subsequent requests by Ms. Sheridan, the insurer has provided no further details or rationale for the denial. "Unfortunately, we're seeing too many examples of insurers in the travel and hospitality sector attempting to shirk their responsibilities and failing to honor rightful claims," said Derek Potts, the attorney for Ms. Sheridan. "Through a class action against these defendants, we will seek the compensation that thousands of individuals who booked through VRBO and purchased this insurance are due." The case is Tralisa Sheridan et. al. v. Assicurazioni Generali et.al., No.220-CV-244, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall. [GN] DALLAS, TX: Prelim. Injunction Denied in Sanchez Inmates Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OSCAR SANCHEZ, et al., on their own and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, v. DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF MARIAN BROWN, et al., Defendants/Respondents, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-00832-E (N.D. Tex.), Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Plaintiffs are detainees at the Dallas County Jail. Due to cases of the highly contagious COVID-19 at the jail, on April 9, 2020, they filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against Defendants Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown and Dallas County, Texas. The State of Texas; the Honorable Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas; and the Honorable Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, moved to intervene as Defendants, and the Court granted their motion. For clarity, the Court will refer to Sheriff Brown and Dallas County as "Defendants" and to the State parties as "Intervenors." The Plaintiffs contend the jail has failed to comply with public health guidelines to manage the outbreak of COVID-19 and cannot provide for their safety. They bring the action as a putative class action. They amended their initial pleading to add new Plaintiffs. They have filed a separate motion asking this Court to certify the action as a class action. There are 12 named Plaintiffs. Some of the named Plaintiffs have contracted COVID-19 and some named Plaintiffs are alleged to have at least one condition that makes them medically vulnerable under the Plaintiffs' definition of what constitutes a "medical vulnerability" during the pandemic. Some of the named Plaintiffs are pre-adjudication detainees. They seek to represent a class of all current and future detainees in pretrial custody. The other named Plaintiffs are in jail post-adjudication and seek to represent a class of all current and future detainees in post-adjudication custody. Both proposed classes include a subclass of persons the Plaintiffs contend are medically vulnerable by reason of age or medical condition. The Plaintiffs seek relief from the Court through two different vehicles. First, they seek the rapid release from custody of people most vulnerable to COVID-19 through a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, starting with the medically vulnerable subclass members. The relief they request includes the release of all current and future medically vulnerable subclass members, whether pre- or post-adjudication, absent proof of judicially-recorded findings by clear and convincing evidence that the individual poses such a serious risk of flight or danger to others that no other conditions can mitigate. In addition, the Plaintiffs seek the release via habeas, or transfer to home confinement, of additional class members, including those who are not medically vulnerable, as needed to ensure that people who remain incarcerated in the jail are under conditions consistent with CDC and public health guidance to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The group they seek to release to the community includes those currently infected with COVID-19. As stated by their counsel at the hearing, the Plaintiffs aren't excluding people from its request for release on the basis of being positive for COVID-19, but they recognize that there would have to be a discharge plan in place. The Plaintiffs also seek injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of the proposed classes. The pre-adjudication the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. They claim the inmates' conditions of confinement are unsafe and constitute punishment. The post-adjudication the Plaintiffs allege violations of their rights under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. On the same day they instituted the action, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking emergency relief. They ask the Court to provisionally certify the pre- and post-adjudication classes and medically vulnerable subclass. They also ask the Court to order the Defendants to provide, within six hours, a list of all individuals detained in the jail who are age 50 or older or who have lung disease, heart disease, chronic liver or kidney disease, diabetes or other endocrine disorders, hypertension, a compromised immune system, blood disorders, inherited metabolic disorders, history of stroke, a developmental disability such that they have trouble understanding information or practicing preventive measures, or difficulty communication symptoms, a BMI of 40 or more, or any other condition identified either now or in the future as being a particular risk for severe illness/or death caused by COVID-19. They also ask the Court to order the Defendants to release, within 24 hours of the list's submission, all persons on the list who are in jail awaiting transfer to a treatment facility as a condition of probation, and when space becomes available at the treatment facility, that those persons will be ordered to report to the treatment provider. The Plaintiffs propose the following process for the release of the remaining people identified as medically vulnerable: The Defendants will have five days to object to the release of anyone on the list only on grounds they are flight risks or a danger to the community. The parties must meet and confer within 24 hours of the Plaintiffs' receipt of the objections. If they cannot reach an agreement regarding release of certain detainees, the Court will review the information and issue habeas relief as it deems appropriate. In addition, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the Defendants to provide released persons with educational resources on COVID-19. In the Motion, the Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief under Section 1983 in the form of a TRO or preliminary injunction. They ask the Court to order the Defendants to immediately take steps to mitigate ongoing threats to health and safety, such as providing unrestricted access to cleaning supplies for each housing area, providing sufficient personal protective equipment for all detainees and staff, cleaning and sanitizing common surfaces in housing areas, bathrooms, and other areas, cleaning and sanitizing bunks between occupants, providing detainees with up-to-date information about transmission and risks of COVID-19, and establishing protocols for detainees to report symptoms and receive health screenings. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order a plan which will be overseen by a qualified public health expert who will be authorized to make unannounced visits to the jail. The plan will outline (a) any additional, specific mitigation efforts needed to prevent, to the degree possible, contraction of COVID-19 by all class members not immediately released; (b) a housing and/or public support plan for any released class members who do not readily have a place to self-isolate for the period of time recommended by the CDC; and (c) an evaluation of whether the release of the medically vulnerable subclass members allows those who remain in jail to adequately social distance and whether other categories of prisoners must be released in order to provide for compliance with CDC guidelines, particularly social distancing. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the Defendants to abide by the plan. Furthermore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order continued weekly reporting by Defendants of the people in custody at the jail with the medical conditions listed. For a variety of reasons, the Defendants and the Intervenors oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion seeking emergency relief. At the evidentiary hearing, the Court heard conflicting evidence about the extent to which public health protocols are being followed in the jail. On review, the Court opines that Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show they are legally entitled to the emergency relief they seek. The Court holds that the Plaintiffs requested extraordinary relief, but even -- especially -- in these extraordinary times, the letter of the law must still be followed. The Court takes the COVID-19 concern seriously, and recognizes the critical constitutional, health, and public safety interests the Plaintiffs invoke as reasons for swift federal action. But delicate considerations of federalism and separation of powers support abstention in that complex, rapidly evolving situation. Because the Plaintiffs have not carried their burden, their request for preliminary injunctive relief is denied, the Court ruled. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/jaVKzw from Leagle.com. DARTMOUTH UNIVERSITY: Harassment Suit Deal Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Press reports that a federal judge has submitted final approval of a $14 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Dartmouth College for allegedly ignoring years of harassment and assault by former psychology professors. The Valley News reports that of the $14 million, $5.1 million will cover lawyer fees and other expenses, each named plaintiff will receive $75,000 for their contributions, and the remaining balance will be split among the plaintiffs and 65 other women who say they were affected by the misconduct. An independent party will determine the individual sums awarded to each person, and any remaining money will be donated to the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. [GN] DAVIS WRIGHT: Anderson Securities Suit Removed to Dist. of Oregon ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE ANDERSON, trustee of the Diane L. Anderson Revocable Trust; BONNIE BUCKLEY; trustee of the Bonnie K. Buckley IRA; CARL AND KIRBY DYESS, trustees of the Dyess Family Trust; PETER KOUBECK, an individual and trustee of Peter L. Koubeck IRA; MICHAEL PETERSON, trustee of the Michael T. Peterson IRA; and ED WILSON, an individual v. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership; ROSS MILES, an individual; MAUREEN WILE, an individual; and PACIFIC PREMIER BANK, a California chartered bank, Case No. 20CV09418 (Filed February 25, 2020), was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland) on July 22, 2020. The District of Oregon Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01194-AC to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violation of securities laws. Defendants Ross Miles and Maureen Wile are citizens of Washington. Pacific Premier Bank is a California chartered bank.[BN] Defendant Davis Wright Tremaine LLP is represented by: Timothy S. DeJong, Esq. Keith A. Ketterling, Esq. Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq. Lydia Anderson-Dana, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: tdejong@stollberne.com kketterling@stollberne.com jwagner@stollberne.com landersondana@stollberne.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Rowan Suit Over Manipulation of Futures ------------------------------------------------------------ Todd Rowan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, and JOHN DOES 1- 50, Case No. 1:20-cv-04353 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury Futures contracts and options on Treasury Futures contracts. The Plaintiff also accuses the Defendants of manipulating Eurodollar Futures contracts and options on Eurodollar Futures contracts that trade on United States-based exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and its subsidiary the Chicago Board of Trade, during the period from at least January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, and the common law. According to the complaint, the Defendants manipulated the prices of Treasury and Eurodollar Futures by employing a classic manipulative device known as "spoofing," whereby the Defendants placed orders for Treasury and Eurodollar Futures to send false and illegitimate supply and demand signals to these markets and then canceled those orders before execution. As a result, the Defendants caused Treasury and Eurodollar Futures prices to be artificial throughout the Class Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the expense of other investors, such as the Plaintiff. The Defendants engaged their scheme throughout the Class Period and successfully manipulated Treasury and Eurodollar Futures prices to artificial levels throughout the Class Period, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a Eurodollar Futures trader and partner in a large Chicago-based trading firm during the Class Period. Deutsche Bank AG is a German financial services company headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq. Brian P. O'Connell, Esq. Kaitlin Naughton, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Email: afata@caffertyclobes.com jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com boconnell@caffertyclobes.com knaughton@caffertyclobes.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-507-6085 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com EIGHT ORANGES: Faces Wu Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kuokwing Wu, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EIGHT ORANGES INC d/b/a The Bao; JOANNE HONG BAO a/k/a Hong Bao, RICHARD LIN, and ALANNA LIN, Case No. 1:20-cv-05786 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law alleging that the Plaintiff is 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 have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Meat Preparer. EIGHT ORANGES INC., doing business as The Bao, 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 ELANCO ANIMAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors that they have only until July 20, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (NYSE: ELAN), if they purchased the Company's securities between January 10, 2020 and May 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. About the Lawsuit Elanco and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On May 7, 2020, pre-market, the Company disclosed disappointing 1Q2020 financial results including revenue of $657.7 million and earnings per share of -$0.12, reflecting "a reduction of approximately $60 million in channel inventory" due in part to "distributor performance," and that the Company planned "to tighten [its] approach across many facets of [its] distributor relationships." On this news, the price of Elanco's shares plummeted over 13%, to close at $19.88 per share on May 7, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The case is Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated, et al., 20-cv-01460. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] ENERGY RECOVERY: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Energy Recovery, Inc. common stock between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 21, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On October 19, 2015, the Company announced that it has signed a fifteen-year deal with Schlumberger Technology Corp. ("Schlumberger"), which gave Schlumberger the exclusive right to the use of the Company's VorTeq technology (the "Schlumberger Licensing Agreement"). Under the terms of the Schlumberger Licensing Agreement, Schlumberger paid $75 million exclusivity fee and was to pay an additional $50 million milestone payments in 2016. The terms also dictated that Schlumberger would pay continuing annual royalties for the duration of the license agreement, subject to the satisfaction of certain key performance indicators. On June 29, 2020--not even five years into the Schlumberger License Agreement--the Company issued a press release, announcing the termination of the licensing agreement with Schlumberger, citing to "different strategic perspectives as to the path to VorTeq commercialization." The Company further announced that following the termination, "no further payments will be made by either party" and that "Energy Recovery will now be fully responsible for commercialization of the VorTeq technology globally." This news caused a sharp decline in the price of Energy Recovery shares, which fell 15.8%, to close at $7.59 on June 30, 2020. Several securities analysts downgraded Energy Recovery's rating and significantly lowered the Company's price target. As one analyst commented, "[the Company] should have been able to perceive in advance and then explicitly warn about the significant, and likely rising, odds of this outcome." The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and financial health. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq; (ii) which created substantial risk of early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. If you purchased Energy Recovery common stock during the Class Period, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] ENERGY RECOVERY: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Energy Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERII) securities between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Energy Recovery investors have until September 21, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On June 29, 2020, Energy Recovery announced the termination of its 15-year contract with Schlumberger Technology Corp. ("Schlumberger") for the exclusive use of Energy Recovery's VorTeq hydraulic pumping system, citing "different strategic perspectives as to the path to VorTeq commercialization." Without the agreement in place, the Company will be wholly responsible for the commercialization of the VorTeq technology. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.31 or over 14%, to close at $7.60 per share on June 30, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq; (2) that these differences created substantial risk of early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (3) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. If you purchased Energy Recovery securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 21, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Energy Recovery securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. [GN] ENERGY RECOVERY: Gross Law Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in Energy Recovery Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in Energy Recovery during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII) Investors Affected: August 2, 2017 - June 29, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Energy Recovery, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq technology than Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive rights to the use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created substantial risk of early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8159&from=1. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] ENERGY RECOVERY: Holzer & Holzer Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Holzer & Holzer, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Energy Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERII) securities between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq, which created substantial risk of early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger. If you purchased shares of Energy Recovery securities between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020 and suffered significant losses on that investment, you are encouraged to contact Marshall P. Dees Esq. at -- mdees@holzerlaw.com -- or Luke R. Kennedy, Esq. at --lkennedy@holzerlaw.com -- or through www.holzerlaw.com to discuss your legal rights. Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D. Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. [GN] ENERGY RECOVERY: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class action in the United States District Court Southern District Of New York on behalf of its client and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Energy Recovery Inc. ("Energy Recovery" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ERII) from August 2, 2017 to June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action alleges violations of the federal securities laws. Headquartered in California, Energy Recovery develops and manufactures technologies for the oil & gas, chemical and water industries. Its leading technology is VorTeq hydraulic pump system. In 2015, Energy Recovery entered into a 15-year licensing agreement with Schlumberger Technology Corp. ("Schlumberger") for the exclusive use of VorTeq. Under the terms of the licensing agreement, Schlumberger paid $75 million exclusivity fee and was to pay an additional $50 million milestone payments in 2016. However, on June 29, 2020, the Company announced the termination of the licensing agreement with Schlumberger citing "different strategic perspectives as to the path to VorTeq commercialization." Investors reacted negatively. On this news, shares of Energy Recovery fell from $8.91 to $7.59 on June 30, 2020 and fell again to $7.01 on July 1, 2020 a loss of 21.3%. As one analyst pointed out, "[Energy Recovery] should have been able to perceive in advance and then explicitly warn about the significant, and likely rising, odds of this outcome." The Complaint alleges that Energy Recovery made false and misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq (ii) which created substantial risk of early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than September 21, 2020. Any member of the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice. If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Energy Recovery's common stock from August 2, 2017 to June 29, 2020, you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Christian Levis at clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. The class action is titled Visser v. Energy Recovery Inc., No.1:20-cv-05647-VM. [GN] ENHANCED RECOVERY: Espinal Class Certification Bid Denied --------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as GLADYS ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-05641-JMV-SCM (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; 2. granting the Defendant's motion as to Plaintiff's repetitive notice and true name claims; 3. denying Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment; and 4. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Enhanced Recovery provides debt collection and asset recovery and reporting services. The Company offers solutions, including primary, secondary, and warehouse collection, as well as client liaison services such as reports on status, cancellation, and payment remittance.[CC] ENPHASE ENERGY: Gross Law Reminds of Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in Enphase Energy. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:ENPH) Investors Affected: February 26, 2019 - June 17, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Enphase Energy, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8159&from=1. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:ENPH) ("Enphase") on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Important Deadline:Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock during the Class Period may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please click https://www.ktmc.com/enphase-energy-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=enphase. According to the complaint, Enphase is a global energy technology company that delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform. Enphase asserts that it revolutionized the solar industry with its microinverter technology, and that it produces a fully integrated solar-plus-storage solution. The Class Period commences on February 26, 2019, when Enphase issued a press release on a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it announced Enphase's financial results for the fourth quarter and year-ended 2018. In the press release, Enphase stated that for the fourth quarter of 2018 it had revenue of $92.3 million, an increase of 18% sequentially and an increase of 16% year-over-year. The press release further stated that Enphase's non-GAAP gross margin was 30.7%, a decrease of 210 basis points from 32.8% in the third quarter. For the full year ended December 31, 2018, Enphase reported revenue of $316.159 million, with gross margins of 29.9%, up from $286.166 million and 19.6% for the year ended December 31, 2017. The complaint alleges that, on June 17, 2020, analyst Prescience Point Capital Management ("Prescience Point") published a report in which it wrote that "[a]t least $205.3m of ENPH's reported FY19 US revenue is fabricated, and a significant portion of its international revenue is fabricated as well." The report continued: "[m]ost, if not all, of the 2,080 Bps expansion in ENPH's gross margin since Q2'17 is also fabricated," and called on Enphase's accountant, Deloitte, to "launch an in-depth investigation of EPNH's accounting practices." Prescience Point further called on "[r]egulatory and law enforcement agencies with subpoena power [to] launch a full investigation of the Company, its accounting, its disclosures and trading by insiders." Following this news, Enphase's stock price fell by approximately 26% in one day, from its June 16, 2020 close of $52.76 per share to a June 17, 2020 close of $39.04 per share. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated; (2) Enphase engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) Enphase's reported basis point expansion in gross margins was overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll-free) or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. Enphase investors may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. [GN] EQUINOR ENERGY: Nelson Files Breach of Contract Suit in D.N.D. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equinor Energy LP. The case is styled as Josolyn Nelson, Deborah Nelson, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. Equinor Energy LP, Case No. 1:20-cv-00133-CRH (D.N.D., July 27, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Equinor Energy LP was founded in 1992. The Company's line of business includes performing geophysical, geological, and other exploration services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A Barton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON 7227 Metcalf Ave., Suite 301 Overland Park, KS 66204 Phone: (913) 563-6255 Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com - and - Joshua A. Swanson, Esq. VOGEL LAW FIRM 218 NP Avenue PO Box 1389 Fargo, ND 58107-1389 Phone: (701) 237-6983 Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com - and - Robert James Pathroff, Esq. VOGEL LAW FIRM PO Box 2097 200 N. 3rd St., Ste. 201 Bismarck, ND 58502-2097 Phone: (701) 258-7899 Fax: (701) 258-9705 Email: rpathroff@vogellaw.com ERIE INSURANCE: Three Little Pigs Sues Over Failure to Pay Losses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Three Little Pigs Bar-B-Q, Inc. d/b/a Three Little Pigs Bar B Cue, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02544-TLP-cgc (W.D. Tenn., July 24, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for breach of their contractual obligations by summarily denying the Plaintiff's claim and failing to pay for losses and expenses. To protect the restaurant premises and the income from operation of the restaurant, the Plaintiff purchased, inter alia, an all risk general liability policy issued by Erie with policy number Q970977911. This insurance policy was effective April 1, 2019, through April 1, 2020, and was renewed on April 1, 2020, through April 1, 2021. The terms of those policies are collectively referred to herein as the "Policy." The Policy was issued by Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange. Under the Policy, Erie is responsible for, inter alia, claims handling, including receiving and managing claims and loss notices, responding to questions about insurance and coverage, investigating claims, and paying claims for covered losses. The Policy is a bilateral contract. Plaintiff agreed to pay monthly premiums to Erie in exchange for promises of coverage for certain losses. Among other types of coverage, the Policy protects Plaintiff against a loss of business income due to an interruption of the restaurant's operations due to loss of use and/or damage at the premises of the business. This type of coverage is often referred to as business interruption coverage. Beginning in March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to suspend business operations at the restaurant due to risk of infection of COVID-19 and/or actions of civil authorities prohibiting full access to and occupancy of the restaurant. This interruption, which is ongoing in terms of its impact on business operations, has caused Plaintiff to suffer significant losses and incur significant expenses. On March 16, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a claim for coverage under the Policy. Under the Policy, the Defendant promised to cover these losses and expenses, and is obligated to pay for them. But in breach of its contractual obligations, the Defendant summarily denied the claim of the Plaintiff and failed to pay for these losses and expenses, and has taken the position it will not pay any such similar claims no matter the circumstances to putative class member, according to the complaint. The Defendant is failing and refusing to pay for similar losses and expenses of other insureds holding policies that are, in all material respects, identical. Plaintiff Three Little Pigs operates a restaurant located in Memphis, Tennessee. Erie Insurance Exchange is a member of the Erie Insurance Group, which is organized under the laws of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Luke Sanderson, Esq. 44 N. Second Street, Suite 500 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 523-1844 Fax: (901) 523-1857 Email: Luke@wcwslaw.com - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. W. Tucker Brown, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 488-1200 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com - and - Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq. D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 314-0500 Fax: (205) 254-1500 Email: dgp@wigginschilds.com dgpjr@wigginschilds.com FACEBOOK INC: Bumps Up Offer to $650MM to Settle Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Guynn at USA Today reports that Facebook has agreed to pay $650 million--$100 million more than before--to settle a long-running class-action lawsuit over its use of facial recognition technology. "We are focused on settling as it is in the best interest of our community and our shareholders to move past this matter," Facebook said in a statement. Three Illinois residents sued Facebook under a state law, the Biometric Information Privacy Act, which allows residents who have had their faces scanned for data without written consent to sue. The lawsuit, which was certified as a class action, involved gathering facial data for a Facebook feature that suggests the name of people in users' photos and could have exposed Facebook to billions in damages. Facial recognition software is courting more controversy in the wake of nationwide protests over police brutality. Amazon, Microsoft and IBM are suspending or limiting law enforcement's access to the technology, which frequently misidentifies African Americans and other people of color. Facebook's original settlement offer of $550 million in January, which would have resulted in payouts of between $150 to $300 a person, was hailed by the law firms representing Facebook users as the largest cash settlement ever to resolve a privacy-related lawsuit. It was rejected by U.S. District Judge James Donato of California as too paltry. "It's $550 million. That's a lot. But the question is, is it really a lot?" Donato asked lawyers for both sides in a court hearing last month, according to a transcript reviewed by NPR.[GN] FACEBOOK INC: Faces Lawsuit Amid Sexual Misconduct Denunciations ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a Quebec man wants to file a class action against Facebook in the wake of a recent wave of denunciations of sexual misconduct on social networks. The request to authorize a class action was filed on July 21 in Quebec Superior Court in Montreal. The applicant is identified only by the initials C.D. He claims to have a name so common in Quebec that it is impossible to know if it is he who is the target of online allegations, the details of which are not mentioned in the application. The Canadian Press has obtained a copy of the request, and in it C.D. says he wants to bring the action on behalf of all people whose reputations have been damaged as a result of the association of their names -- or details allowing their identification -- with what he alleges are defamatory publications. In his application, the man lashes out at those behind several pages that anonymously post allegations of harassment or sexual assault through social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram. C. D. claims he saw his name on one of the pages in question. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Quebec Man Seeks to Launch Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a man is seeking permission to launch a class-action lawsuit against Facebook in the wake of the most recent wave of sexual misconduct allegations in Quebec on social networks. The request to authorize a class action was filed in Quebec Superior Court in Montreal. The applicant is identified only by the initials C.D. He claims to have a name so common in Quebec that it is impossible to know if he is the target of an online allegation. No details or context is associated with the name. The application for the class action, which was obtained by the Canadian Press, states the man wants to file the lawsuit on behalf of all people whose reputations have been allegedly damaged as a result of the association of their names or details that allow them to be identified with defamatory statements on social media networks.[GN] FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Hotinger Suit Over Violations of Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Hotinger, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. FAMILY DOLLAR, INC., a North Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV27971 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, July 24, 2020), accuses the Defendants of having employment policies, practices and procedures, which violate the California Labor Code. These employment practices include: failure to provide adequate seating for the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees; failure to pay the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for all time worked spent "of the clock"; failure to provide the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees with compliant meal breaks; failure to provide the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees with compliant rest breaks; failure to provide the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees with accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code; and failure to pay the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees with all wages owed at time of termination. As a direct result of the Defendants' wage and hour violations, the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees have suffered and have incurred expenses and attorneys' fees in seeking to compel the Defendants to fully perform their obligations under state law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in Los Angeles County. FAMILY DOLLAR INC. is a North Carolina corporation that does business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Phone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: sahagii@aol.com FEDERAL NATIONAL: Montilla Appeals D.R.I. Ruling to First Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Neris Montilla, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Montilla, et al. v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00632-WES-LDA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Providence. The lawsuit is a putative class action against the Defendants for alleged wrongful foreclosure of the Plaintiffs' properties. The appellate case is captioned as Montilla, et al. v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, et al., Case No. 20-1673, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Appearance form, Docketing Statement, and Transcript Report/Order form are due on August 3, 2020.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NERIS MONTILLA, On behalf of themselves and all others so similarly situated; RUBEN VELASQUEZ, On behalf of themselves and all others so similarly situated; ROSELIA MONTUFAR, On behalf of themselves and all others so similarly situated; and MICHAEL KYRIAKAKIS are represented by: Todd Steven Dion, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD S. DION 628 Park Ave., Suite 2C Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 965-4131 Facsimile: (401) 353-1231 E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com Defendants-Appellees FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, SETERUS, INC., C.I.T. BANK, N.A., and COOPER are represented by: Samuel Craig Bodurtha, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 56 Exchange Terrace, 5th Fl. Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 751-0842 E-mail: sbodurtha@hinshawlaw.com - and - Alison Burton, Esq. WILMERHALE LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109-0000 Telephone: (617) 526-6809 E-mail: alison.burton@wilmerhale.com - and - Noah A. Levine, Esq. WILMERHALE LLP 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8875 E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com - and - Ethan Z. Tieger, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 321 South Main Street, Suite 301 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 751-0842 E-mail: etieger@hinshawlaw.com - and - Michael A.F. Johnson, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 Telephone: (202) 942-5783 E-mail: michael.johnson@arnoldporter.com - and - Chava Brandriss, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th St. NW Washington, DC 20004-1109 Telephone: (202) 637-6558 E-mail: chava.brandriss@hoganlovells.com - and - Allison J. Schoenthal HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 918-3647 E-mail: allison.schoenthal@hoganlovells.com - and - Alexandra G. Watson, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 53 State St., 27th Flr. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 213-7000 - and - Raymond A. Garcia, Esq. Julia Strickland, Esq. STROOCK STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 2029 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086 Telephone: (310) 556-5800 E-mail: rgarcia@stroock.com jstrickland@stroock.com - and - Jeffrey Lewis Levy, Esq. LEVY & BLACKMAN LLP 469 Angell St. Providence, RI 02906 Telephone: (401) 437-690 - and - Joseph A. Farside, Jr., Esq. Krystle Guillory Tadesse, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 2800 Financial Plaza Providence, RI 02903-0000 Telephone: (401) 274-9200 E-mail: joseph.farside@lockelord.com krystle.tadesse@lockelord.com FLORIDA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Dismissal of Fee Refunds Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS4Miami reports that the Florida state university system is asking a Leon County circuit judge to toss out a potential class-action lawsuit in which Florida students are seeking partial refunds of fees they paid for the spring semester. [GN] FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT) Class Period: 2/6/2020 - 5/15/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 10, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fsct/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients - including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Lewis Kahn Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Tel No: 1-877-515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] FOSTERS FREEZE: Desalvo Files ADA Class Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fosters Freeze International, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Brett Desalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fosters Freeze International, LLC; Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06657 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fosters Freeze is a chain of fast-food restaurants in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com GAIN CAPITAL: Faces Zhang Suit Over Deceptive Futures Contracts --------------------------------------------------------------- Jun Zhang, a.k.a., June Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gain Capital Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09426 (D.N.J., July 24, 2020), arises from issues relating to the Plaintiff's trading of the Defendant's futures contract named US_OIL. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of users of the Defendant's trading platform, forex.com, for trading the contracts, US_OIL, and was damaged first by the Defendant's settlement of the May 2020 contracts on April 21, 2020, using the lowest displayed price of $0.01 instead of the displayed closing price of $0.05 of the contracts on April 20, 2020, and then by the Defendant's imposition of an "adjustment" on April 23, 2020, based on the negative closing price of the WTI contracts for May 2020. One of Plaintiff's major trading activities using the Defendant's platform is directed to a Defendant's futures contract named "US_OIL," with a Chinese name literally meaning U.S. Crude Oil. As its name indicates, US_OIL trades crude oil futures through commodity future exchanges in the United States, which are primarily exchanges controlled by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (the "CME Group"). In its essence, the US_OIL monthly contracts closely track the monthly futures contracts of the U.S. crude oil benchmark, West Texas Intermediate or WTI, which are administered by the CME Group. The US_OIL contracts are crude oil futures derivative products that Defendant offered through its trading platform, forex.com, in all relevant times to non-U.S. residents, including Chinese residents like the Plaintiff. For the US_OIL trading, the Defendant provides its customers like the Plaintiff with real time quotes from the CME Group for WTI and other oil-related futures in the United States and general research and guidance for the U.S. oil market. Thus, by allowing the Plaintiff and other customers to buy and sell US_OIL as a derivative of the WTI futures of the CME Group, the Defendant has been acting as the Plaintiff's investment dealer and advisor for U.S.-based investments. On April 20, 2020, the day the WTI May 2020 contracts were set to expire, their pricing dropped to the negative territory, reaching -$40.32 per barrel at its lowest point and closing at -$37.63 per barrel. Throughout this turmoil, however, the Defendant's US_OIL contract pricing remained in the positive territory, with the lowest price shown as $0.01 per barrel and the closing price at $0.05 per barrel. Further, approximately 22 minutes before the closing of U.S. crude oil trading on that day, the Defendant's US_OIL halted trading, thus, dissociating the derivative from its underlying WTI futures contracts. On April 29, 2020, the Defendant published another article through its official WeChat account entitled "Additional Information regarding Crude Oil Market." This article fraudulently refers to the April 27 article as "being published on April 20," in an attempt to rewrite the history. The Plaintiff says he complained several times to the Defendant, to no avail. During his complaint process, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff and its other customers a contract which the Plaintiff allegedly executed by opening an account on the Defendant's forex.com platform (the "Purported Contract"). This was the first time the Plaintiff had ever heard of such a contract, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a "self-directed trader," who has been using Defendant's GAIN Trade platform for trading derivatives of commodity futures since 2017. The Defendant is "a global provider of trading services and solutions" with customers located in more than 180 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin B. Xue, Esq. XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 School Street, Suite 303A Glen Cove, NY 11542 Phone: (516) 595-8887 Facsimile: (212) 219-2276 Email: benjaminxue@xuelaw.com - and - J. James Li, Esq. LILAW INC. 1905 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95125 Phone: (650) 521-5956 Facsimile: (650) 521-5955 Email: lij@lilaw.us GEICO CASUALTY: Sued by Siegal for Profiting From COVID-19 Crisis ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANA SIEGAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-04306 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2020), is filed to end GEICO's alleged practice of unfairly profiting from the global COVID-19 pandemic. According to the complaint, GEICO has continued to charge and collect excessive premiums, and has failed to issue adequate refunds. The Company's "GEICO Giveback" program is woefully inadequate to compensate for the excessive premiums that customers have paid as a result of COVID-19. The program applies a 15% discount on new and renewal auto insurance policies only. It does not apply to the premiums that the customer has already paid or will continue to pay on policies already existing at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. And even with respect to new and renewal policies, the 15% credit falls well short of what has been conservatively estimated as an adequate return of premiums. The Plaintiff contends that while many companies, industries, and individuals have suffered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, auto insurers like GEICO have scored a windfall. Not surprisingly, as a result of state-wide social distancing and stay-at-home measures, there has been a dramatic reduction in driving, and an attendant reduction in driving-related accidents. As a result of this decrease in driving and accidents, the premiums charged by auto insurance companies during the COVID-19 pandemic, including GEICO, are unconscionably excessive. To remedy the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff brings this class action alleging violations of Illinois state law. The Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains obtained by GEICO to the detriment of its customers, all available damages, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other available relief. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff has held two personal auto insurance policies purchased from GEICO during the time period relevant to this lawsuit. GEICO operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becva, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com - and - Matthew H. Morgan, Esq. Robert L. Schug, Esq. Charles A. Delbridge, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: morgan@nka.com schug@nka.com cdelbridge@nka.com GENESIS DIGITAL: Winegard Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site -------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GENESIS DIGITAL, LLC d/b/a WEBINARJAM d/b/a WWW.WEBINARJAM.COM, Case No. 1:20-cv-03400 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2020), is brought for retribution for the Defendant's actions against deaf and hard of hearing individuals residing in New York and within the United States. The Defendant has denied the Plaintiff, who is deaf and deaf and hard-of-hearing individual, access to goods and services provided to non-disabled individuals through its Web site, http://www.webinarjam.com/.The Defendant has also denied these individuals access to its physical location of offices, webinar and blog studios, in violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the American with Disabilities Act. The Defendant provides goods and services to the public through its Web site. However, due to barriers that make it difficult for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to use the Web site, the Plaintiff alleges. He notes that he other deaf and hard of hearing individuals cannot understand the audio portion of videos on the Web site about how to increase your sales and engage more customers using WebinarJam; how WebinarJam software works and its benefits as non-deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals can. The Plaintiff lives in Queens County, New York, and is a deaf individual. The Defendant offers information and videos about Webinarjam, how to increase your sales and engage more customers using WebinarJam, how WebinarJam software works and the benefits of it's use, information about Webinarjam's cloud-based broadcasting technology, all of which is contained on the Web site.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. SEGAL P.C. 1010 Northern Blvd., Ste. 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 GEO GROUP: Kehoe Law Firm Reminds of September 8 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of investors of The GEO Group, Inc. ("GEO Group" or the "Company") (NYSE: GEO) to determine whether GEO Group may have violated federal securities laws. Investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, securities of GEO Group between February 27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered losses greater than $50,000 are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's Securities Class Action Questionnaire or contact Kevin Cauley, Director, Business Development, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 802, securities@kehoelawfirm.com, info@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss the investigation or potential legal claims. According to a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of GEO Group investors, throughout the Class Period, Defendants, allegedly, made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Defendants, allegedly, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GEO Group maintained woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (ii) those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the Company's halfway houses to significant health risks; (iii) accordingly, the Company was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. IF YOU WISH TO SERVE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, YOU MUST MOVE THE COURT NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 8, 2020. To be a member of the class action, you do not need to take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice; or you can take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel, unless you retain an attorney. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases that have recovered more than $10 billion dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. [GN] GLA COLLECTION: Faces Shoemaker Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Shoemaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. G.L.A. Collection Company, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00520-JRW (W.D. Ky., July 26, 2020), seeks damages and relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act from the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices. Prior to August 5, 2019, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Norton Physician Services. The Norton Physician Services obligation arose out of an alleged debt for medical treatment obtained and which are services used primarily for personal, family or household purposes, specifically medical services. Norton Physician Services or a subsequent owner of the Norton Physician Services debt contracted with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. On August 5, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the alleged debt owed to Norton Physician Services. The top of the Letter states the balance due on the alleged debt is $478.17. Three paragraphs later, the Letter states "The balance due as of the date of this letter is stated above. Due to interest, late charges and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater." According to the complaint, the Defendant is aware that during the collection of this debt, the balance will not vary at all and stating that it may increase is merely a deceptive collection tactic intended to intimidate and coerce the consumer into paying immediately. Stating that the account balance may increase due to adjustments is materially misleading to the Plaintiff and is a false statement that the Defendant knowingly made. The Plaintiff incurred an informational injury as Defendant falsely asserted that interest and fees would be accruing when they were not. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Kentucky, County of Jefferson. Defendant GLA is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: 201-282-6500 Fax: 201-282-6501 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com ysaks@steinsakslegal.com GOOGLE LLC: Killi Referenced in Recent Privacy Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Killi Ltd.(TSXV: MYID), a global leader in consumer privacy, was recently referenced as an example of a firm operating with transparency and consumer inclusion in the recently filed class action lawsuit, Brown et al. vs. Google LLC in California. Highlights of the Proposed Lawsuit: Google was sued in a proposed class action accusing the internet search company of illegally invading the privacy of millions of users by pervasively tracking their internet use through browsers set in "private" mode. The lawsuit seeks at least $5 billion, accusing the Alphabet Inc unit of surreptitiously collecting information about what people view online and where they browse, despite their using what Google calls Incognito mode. According to the complaint filed in the federal court in San Jose, California, Google gathers data through various applications and website plug-ins, including smartphone apps, regardless of whether users click on Google-supported ads. This helps Google learn about users' friends, hobbies, favorite foods, shopping habits, and even the "most intimate and potentially embarrassing things" they search for online, the complaint said. Google "cannot continue to engage in the covert and unauthorized data collection from virtually every American with a computer or phone," the complaint said. Killi Reference in the Lawsuit: "Mr. Brown (Plaintiff) is aware that he is able to sell his personal data, via other websites such as Killi (https://killi.io/earn/). Unlike Killi that asks for Mr. Brown's permission to sell his data in exchange for consideration, Google never asked for his permission, and instead impermissibly intercepts his communications with Websites, and sell information gleaned from such communications. Google's practices irreparably damage Mr. Brown's privacy and his ability to control his own personal rights and data." To learn more about Killi's Data DividendTM and more extensive Fair-Trade DataTM program, please visit https://killi.io/earn. About Killi Killi is a consumer privacy ecosystem that aims to put people back in control of their data. Killi allows consumers to take back control of their consumer data from those who have been collecting it and selling it unbeknownst to them. Available on iOS, Android as well as the web, Killi is available internationally. With Killi, consumers can opt-in and link specific pieces of personal information from various financial and social accounts that they would like to put under their control and share with companies and be compensated directly in the form of cash for its use. [GN] GRACO: Averts Class Action Over Recalled Sleepers ------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a lawsuit seeking to punish Graco for the recall of three of its children's sleepers has failed, as a federal judge ruled the plaintiffs haven't alleged anyone was hurt by them. Los Angeles federal judge Stephen Wilson reached that decision July 20 in a lawsuit over "Little Lounger" sleepers, which were recalled due to a threat of asphyxiation. Graco noted in its motion to dismiss that there were no reported incidents of that actually happening and that it offered refunds to customers, which left the company wondering why plaintiffs attorneys filed suit instead. "Plaintiffs have not alleged that the use of the contested products caused any injury, or even that Plaintiffs have ever used the products at all," the decision says. "Plaintiffs claim they were deprived the benefit of the product they purchased, but Plaintiffs have failed to provide a factual allegation that the product did not or cannot perform the function for which it was sold." Wilson cited a previous Los Angeles case in declaring that the presence of a recall does not establish harm. "A product recall does not imply an admission of false or misleading advertising, and Plaintiffs have yet to provide any factual allegation that the products did not or could not perform as advertised," Wilson wrote. "More importantly for fraud pleading, Plaintiffs have not shown how any of Defendants' statements or advertising were false or misleading." Wilson gave the plaintiffs' lawyers 21 days to file an amended complaint to fix these problems. [GN] GRAND CANYON: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grand Canyon University. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Grand Canyon University, Case No. 1:20-cv-05835 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Grand Canyon University is a for-profit, private, Christian university in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com GREEN APPLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, Arellano Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- YENCY ARELLANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintifff v. GREEN APPLE 37 INC. d/b/a GREEN APPLE; GREEN APPLE GOURMET INC. d/b/a GREEN APPLE; and ERIC YUN KIM, Defendants, 1:20-cv-05293 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Arellano was employed by the Defendants as staff. Green Apple 37 Inc. d/b/a Green Apple is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Sheet Metal Sues Over Inflated Stock Price -------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 Pension Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE INC., MARCUS S. RYU, MICHAEL G. ROSENBAUM, and CURTIS H. SMITH, Case No. 3:20-cv-05038 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2020), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Guidewire common stock from March 6, 2019, through March 4, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Exchange Act. The Defendants touted the "robust" demand that existed for Guidewire's cloud-based products and assured investors that customer demand was "enduring and broad-based across most or all segments of the market." The Defendants emphasized that the Company had "demonstrated particular success with our cloud and digital initiatives," and that "100% of Guidewire customers will make the decision to move to the Guidewire Cloud." Guidewire told investors that cloud sales represented between 55% to 75% of the Company's total sales; by the end of the Class Period, Guidewire had increased the range to 70% to 80%. The Company also issued highly favorable revenue and Annual Recurring Revenue ("ARR") guidance, a financial metric Guidewire created "to provide more insight to the Company's business dynamic through this cloud transition" that was held out by Defendants to be "the best indicator of the overall health of the Company's business." In addition to touting strong demand for Guidewire's cloud offerings, Defendants assured investors that customer demand remained strong across the Company's entire product offering--i.e., including its legacy on-premise business--underscoring that "there still is considerable interest in our self-managed platform." The Plaintiff contends that these statements were materially false and misleading. As the Defendants knew but concealed from investors, the Plaintiff says, the demand for Guidewire's cloud products was weak and the Company's transition to the cloud was not going well because Guidewire's cloud-based products needed to be significantly improved to meet customer needs and catch-up with rival systems. Further, Guidewire's failed transition to the cloud was damaging the Company's traditional on premise business, as customers delayed purchasing decisions or declined to renew existing licenses. As a result, the Plaintiff adds, Guidewire's revenue guidance, including guidance modeled on strong and increasing demand for Guidewire's cloud-based systems, was baseless and unattainable. On March 4, 2020, investors began to learn the truth when Guidewire announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2020 and slashed its full year revenue guidance by $57 million, from a range of $759 million to $771 million to only $702 million to $714 million. In addition, Guidewire cut its ARR guidance from a range of 14% to 16%, down to 11% to 12% for the third quarter of 2020. During the accompanying earnings conference call, the Defendants indicated that Guidewire's cloud products needed to be improved in order to meet customer needs and successfully compete against rival systems. The Defendants also revealed that a large swath of Guidewire customers no longer wanted the Company's traditional on-premise products and had not adopted the Company's cloud products. On this news, Guidewire's share price plummeted 17% in one day, wiping out over $1.5 billion in market capitalization. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Guidewire common stock during the Class Period. Guidewire provides enterprise-level software systems for the property and casualty ("P&C") insurance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Kaplan, Esq. Brandon Marsh, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 997-0860 Facsimile: (858) 369-0096 Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com bmarsh@saxenawhite.com HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Hagens Berman Named Lead Counsel in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman, the preeminent plaintiffs' class action law firm, on July 22, 2020, was appointed lead counsel in a class action brought on behalf of investors against Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL). The firm encourages individuals with relevant, non-public information regarding Hallmark to contact the firm now. Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (HALL) Securities Class Action: The original suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on May 5, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and concealed: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for unpaid losses; and (2) that the Company improperly accounted for reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business. Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, through a series of disclosures beginning on Mar. 2, 2020, when Hallmark announced it was exiting the Binding Primary Commercial Auto business and reported a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years. Then, on Mar. 11, 2020, Hallmark announced it had dismissed its independent auditor BDO over a "disagreement" concerning the Company's estimated reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses throughout 2019. Finally, on Mar. 17, 2020, Hallmark disclosed a letter from BDO to the SEC revealing that BDO had expanded significantly the scope of its audit on Jan. 31, 2020, with respect to the matters of disagreement, and that "a substantial portion the requests had not been received and/or tested prior to our termination." These disclosures caused Hallmark shares to decline over 75% lower between Mar. 2 and Mar. 18, 2020. On July 22, 2020, Hagens Berman was named lead counsel in the case by the Honorable Brantley Starr, with Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of firm, serving as the lead trial counsel. "We are pleased with the appointment and eager to represent the class," said Berman. If you have information regarding Hallmark's alleged fraud, Hagens Berman wants to hear from you. Individuals with non-public information regarding Hallmark are encouraged to contact the firm by emailing HALL@hbsslaw.com or by calling 844-916-0895. For more information about the case visit: http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/HALL About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. [GN] HAMILTON BEACH: Rosen Global Reminds Investors of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE:HBB) between February 27, 2020, and May 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important July 21, 2020 deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Hamilton investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Hamilton class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1856.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (2) consequently, Hamilton's accounting included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results, particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at an increased risk of delaying the filing of its periodic reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 21, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1856.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN] HAMILTON CO: Court Partly Approves Settlement in Zako FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in part a joint motion for approval of settlement agreement in the case captioned JAMES ZAKO, Plaintiff(s), v. HAMILTON COMPANY, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-CV-166 JCM (PAL), (D. Nev.). Zako commenced the putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to challenge Hamilton Company's alleged practice of denying employees overtime pay. Hamilton Company designs, manufactures, markets, and sells a wide range of robotic laboratory products. Zako worked for Hamilton Company as a field service specialist for approximately 15 years. He spent most of his time out in the field, visiting customer sites to install or repair Hamilton products. Zako also worked on-call shifts, in which he would provide remote trouble-shooting services over the phone to customers throughout the United States. Zako claimed that he and other field service specialists regularly worked more than forty hours a week and did not receive overtime pay, in violation of the FLSA. The parties later participated in the Ninth Circuit's mediation program and reached a settlement agreement, which requires the trial court's approval. The proposed settlement provides for, among other things, a monetary settlement, the release of all claims that Zako had against Hamilton Company for overtime wages under the FLSA, and dismissal of the class action with prejudice upon the court's approval of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement also includes a confidentiality provision that bars the parties from disclosing the terms of the agreement. The District Court finds that the terms of the settlement reflect a fair and reasonable compromise over issues actually in dispute. The Court bases this conclusion on: (1) the claims alleged by Zako, which remain in dispute given the uncertainty of the outcome of Zako's appeal; (2) the advanced stage of the proceedings in this case; and (3) the parties' expressed intention to avoid future litigation expenses. The Court however finds that the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement is unenforceable. The Court therefore declines to approve the confidentiality provision contained in the settlement agreement, as it runs contrary to the broad remedial purposes of the FLSA. Upon approval of the settlement, the Court rules that the action is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wmjnvxf from Leagle.com James Zako, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan H. Siegel - jsiegel@sl-employmentlaw.com - Siegel LeWitter Malkani, pro hac vice, Leon Marc Greenberg , Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation, 2965 S Jones Blvd Ste E3, Las Vegas, NV 89146-5606 & Heather M. Conger , Siegel LeWitter Malkani, 1939 Harrison St #307, Oakland, CA 94612, pro hac vice. Hamilton Company, Defendant, represented by Jessica L. Woelfel , McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, Laura R. Jacobsen , McDonald Carano & Wilson & Leigh T. Goddard , McDonald Carano Wilson. HAMILTON JACOBS: McCrae Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hamilton Jacobs & Associates. The case is styled as Cleveland McCrae, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hamilton Jacobs & Associates, Case No. 3:20-cv-00413 (W.D.N.C., July 24, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hamilton Jacobs and Associates in Delaware provides asset recovery services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Randolph Emory, Esq. THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C. 11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102 Charlotte, NC 28262 Phone: (704) 371-4333 Fax: (704) 371-3015 Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com HERBAL HEALING: Baker Sues in D. Vermont Alleging TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herbal Healing, LLC. The case is styled as Tyler Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Herbal Healing, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00105-wks (D. Vt., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Herbal Healing is a medical marijuana dispensary.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Pettersen, Esq. PETTERSON LAW PLLC 1084 East Lakeshore Drive Colchester, VT 05446 Phone: (802) 477-2780 Email: pettersenlaw@gmail.com HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell" or "the Company") (NYSE: HON) for violations of Sec.10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 9, 2018 and October 19, 2018 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before September 4, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Honeywell faced a greater level of Bendix asbestos-related liability than it initially disclosed. The Company also engaged in improper accounting practices related to the Bendix liability. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Honeywell, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.[GN] IDEANOMICS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 27 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Ideanomics Inc. ("Ideanomics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IDEX) between March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Ideanomics securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Ideanomics IDEX Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) Ideanomics' MEG Center in Qingdao was not "a one million square foot EV expo center"; (ii) the Company had been using doctored or altered photographs of the purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (iii) the Company's electric vehicle business in China was not performing nearly as strong as Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg Research issued a series of tweets announcing Hindenburg's conclusion that Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX) "is an egregious & obvious fraud." Hindenburg asserted that it found evidence that Ideanomics "doctored photos in its PR to suggest it owns/operates" a facility, and that this "strikes us as a clear effort by the company to manipulate the photographs in order to drive its stock price up." Hindenburg further asserted that it had an investigator who visited Ideanomics "supposed MEG sales center," and that the "facility is actually operated by almost 100 sales groups," none of whom had "heard of [Ideanomics] or MEG." Furthermore, Hindenburg stated that it had its "investigator call five of [Ideanomics'] purported customers that are helping drive its supposed [electric vehicle] business," and that "[n]one of them were aware of Ideanomics and none were able to confirm doing business with" Ideanomics. Also on June 25, 2020, analyst J Capital Research issued a report on Ideanomics entitled "Champion of Promotes." J Capital wrote, in part, that "Ideanomics . . . is a zero. The company changes its name and promotional story so frequently that it's hard to keep up. One thing remains a constant, despite all the press releases, buzzwords and hype: shareholders get wiped out." J Capital continued, in a tweet, that "[w]e called all the 'buyers' named in [Ideanomics'] press releases in July. Not a single one had made a purchase. One of them thanked us for alerting them to 'fake news.'" On this announcement, Ideanomics shares fell approximately 21% in one day, down to $2.44 per share from their June 24, 2020 close of $3.09 per share. Shares continued to plummet on June 26, 2020, closing at just $1.46 per share, a drop of approximately 53%. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Ideanomics securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ideanomicsinc-idex-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-280/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP -- https://www.bernlieb.com --has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Barbuto & Johansson Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO" or the "Firm") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON), announce that a Securities Class Action lawsuit has been filed against Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP) (the "Company" or "Insperity"), and encourages shareholders with losses exceeding $100,000 to contact the Firm to discuss the case and their options as class members. The deadline to petition the court to act as a lead plaintiff is September 21, 2020. The case, Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc., et al., Case No.: 1:20-cv-05635-NRB, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that Insperity and certain of its executives made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and financial condition during the Class Period, causing artificially inflated prices of the Company's securities. Specifically, it is alleged, in part, that the Company failed to disclose that Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims and that as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention. It is further alleged that the Company failed to disclose that the aforementioned issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. If you purchased shares of Insperity during the Class Period and would like to discuss your right to recovery for your economic loss and application for lead plaintiff, you may, without obligation or cost, contact attorney Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520, or via email at -- anthony@barjolaw.com --, or attorney Neil Rothstein via email at neil@barjolaw.com. The Firm believes strongly that the choice of a qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the successful outcome of a case. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Insperity Inc., between February 11, 2019, and February 11, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Insperity securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Insperity Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. The truth about Insperity's deceptive business practices was revealed through a series of disclosures. First, on July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019 financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and meeting analysts' estimates, the Company offered disappointing third quarter 2019 and reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. The Defendants also revealed that Insperity had experienced an increase in large medical claim costs. On this news, Insperity shares fell $35.74 per share, or 25 percent. Second, on November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter 2019 financial results, which substantially missed analysts' estimates and were materially down year-over-year. On this news, Insperity shares fell by $36.29 per share, or 34 percent. Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading, Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial results. Insperity revealed that large medical claims had impacted the company significantly increasing operational costs. Further, the Company stated that it had restructured its contract with UnitedHealthcare to no longer have financial responsibility for any medical claims over $1 million. On this news, Insperity's shares declined $17.44 per share, or over 20 percent. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 21, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Insperity securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/insperityinc-nsp-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-285/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP Tel No: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: mGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] INSPERITY INC: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Insperity, Inc. ("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) common stock between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Insperity investors have until September 21, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On February 11, 2020, after the market closed, Insperity issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2019 financial results. Therein, Insperity disclosed that "[t]he average profit per [worksite employee] per month declined from $272 in 2018 to $259 in 2019 on a higher than expected benefits cost trend due to elevated large healthcare claim activity." Additionally, the Company reported that it had "recently added a new feature" in its health plan so that, beginning in 2020, Insperity will not have financial responsibility for any amount of a participant's annual claim costs that exceed $1 million. On this news, Insperity's share price fell $17.44 per share, or over 19%, to close at $71.64 per share on February 12, 2020, at unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (2) that Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (3) that as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (4) that the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. If you purchased Insperity common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 21, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Insperity securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Gainey McKenna Alerts of Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on July 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Insperity, Inc. ("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Insperity between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Insperity investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (ii) the Company was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact the Company's financial results. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Insperity during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the September 21, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Insperity, Inc. ("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) common stock between February 11, 2019, and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Insperity investors have until September 21, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your Insperity investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/insperity-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On February 11, 2020, after the market closed, Insperity issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2019 financial results. Therein, Insperity disclosed that "[t]he average profit per [worksite employee] per month declined from $272 in 2018 to $259 in 2019 on a higher than expected benefits cost trend due to elevated large healthcare claim activity." Additionally, the Company reported that it had "recently added a new feature" in its health plan so that, beginning in 2020, Insperity will not have financial responsibility for any amount of a participant's annual claim costs that exceed $1 million. On this news, Insperity's share price fell $17.44 per share, or over 19%, to close at $71.64 per share on February 12, 2020, at unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (2) that Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (3) that as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (4) that the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. If you purchased Insperity common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 21, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Holzer & Holzer Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ Holzer & Holzer LLC on July 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Insperity, Inc. ("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) securities between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges (i) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. If you purchased shares of Insperity securities between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020 and suffered significant losses you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Luke R. Kennedy, Esq. at lkennedy@holzerlaw.com, or by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 to discuss your legal rights. Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Insperity, Inc.("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) common stock between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Insperity investors have until September 21, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Insperity investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On February 11, 2020, after the market closed, Insperity issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2019 financial results. Therein, Insperity disclosed that "[t]he average profit per [worksite employee] per month declined from $272 in 2018 to $259 in 2019 on a higher than expected benefits cost trend due to elevated large healthcare claim activity." Additionally, the Company reported that it had "recently added a new feature" in its health plan so that, beginning in 2020, Insperity will not have financial responsibility for any amount of a participant's annual claim costs that exceed $1 million. On this news, Insperity's share price fell $17.44 per share, or over 19%, to close at $71.64 per share on February 12, 2020, at unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (2) that Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (3) that as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (4) that the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. If you purchased Insperity common stock, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 21 Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until September 21, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP), if they purchased the Company's shares between February 11, 2019 through February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Insperity and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-nsp/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by September 21, 2020. About the Lawsuit Insperity and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company had failed to sufficiently disclose the risk posed by large medical claims from its employee benefit plans or to negotiate suitable rates with its customers for the plans; (ii) large medical claims were continuing to impact the Company by significantly increasing operational costs; (iii) increased costs of its employee benefit plans would hinder customer growth and retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact the Company's financial results. The case is Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc., No. 20-cv-5635. About Kahn Swick & Foti Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") announced that on July 21, 2020, it filed a securities class action lawsuit, against Insperity, Inc. ("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) and certain executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The lawsuit, captioned Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc., No. 20-cv-5635 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania ("Building Trades Western Pennsylvania") against Insperity, Inc. ("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) and certain executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Insperity common stock from February 11, 2019 through February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). Insperity provides human resource services and employee benefits to small and medium-sized business customers, including group health insurance plans. A majority of these plans are provided by UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company ("UnitedHealthcare"). According to Insperity, it considers its UnitedHealthcare offering to be one of "the most significant elements of [its] employee benefits package." Under its contract with UnitedHealthcare, Insperity is liable for plan costs (primarily medical claims from its customers' employees) that exceed the fixed premiums paid and owed to UnitedHealthcare. Therefore, Insperity's ability to properly estimate and report its medical claims expense is important to its investors. The Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants: (i) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. The truth about Insperity's deceptive business practices was revealed through a series of disclosures. First, on July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019 financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and meeting analysts' estimates, the Company offered disappointing third quarter 2019 guidance and reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Further, Defendants revealed that in the second quarter 2019, Insperity had experienced an increase in large medical claim costs, which Defendants described as an anomaly which would not impact projected cost benefit trends. On this news, Insperity shares fell $35.74 per share, or 25 percent. Second, on November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter 2019 financial results, which substantially missed analysts' estimates and were materially down year-over-year. In addition, Insperity materially reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Defendants attributed these results to continued large medical claim costs, which they again attempted to describe as a mere anomaly to assuage investor concern. On this news, Insperity shares fell by $36.29 per share, or 34 percent. Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading, Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial results. On this date, Insperity revealed that, for the third quarter in a row, large medical claims had again impacted the Company. Further, the Company stated that it had restructured its contract with UnitedHealthcare to no longer have financial responsibility for any medical claims over $1 million. Insperity also offered disappointingly bearish guidance for the first quarter and full-year 2020. On this news, Insperity shares declined by $17.44 per share, or 20 percent. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Insperity common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than September 21, 2020. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at dschwartz@labaton.com. Building Trades Western Pennsylvania -- http://www.labaton.com-- is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Rigrodsky & Long Alerts of Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on July 22 disclosed that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Insperity, Inc. ("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased shares of Insperity during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Insperity, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D. Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/cases-insperity-inc. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (i) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on February 11, 2019, the start of the Class Period, Insperity reported its fourth quarter and full-year 2018 financial results, which results were up significantly year-over-year. Additionally the Company offered bullish full-year 2019 guidance. Likewise, on April 29, 2019, Insperity reported "record" first quarter results, and raised its full-year 2019 guidance. Therefore, at least according to Defendants' narrative, Insperity was poised to deliver a record year of growth as a result of the Company's successful business model. As a result, Insperity's stock price dramatically increased during the first half of 2019. The truth about Insperity's deceptive business practices was revealed through a series of disclosures. First, on July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019 financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and meeting analysts' estimates, the Company offered disappointing third quarter 2019 guidance and reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Further, Defendants revealed that in the second quarter 2019, Insperity had experienced an increase in large medical claim costs, which Defendants described as an anomaly which would not impact projected cost benefit trends. On this news, Insperity shares fell $35.74 per share, or 25%. Second, on November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter 2019 financial results, which substantially missed analysts' estimates and were materially down year-over-year. In addition, Insperity materially reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Defendants attributed these results to continued large medical claim costs, which they again attempted to describe as a mere anomaly to assuage investor concern. On this news, Insperity shares fell by $36.29 per share, or 34%. Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading, Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial results. On this date, Insperity revealed that, for the third quarter in a row, large medical claims had again impacted the Company. Further, the Company stated that it had restructured its contract with UnitedHealthcare to no longer have financial responsibility for any medical claims over $1 million. Insperity also offered disappointingly bearish guidance for the first quarter and full-year 2020. On this news, shares of Insperity fell almost 20%, closing at $71.64 per share on February 12, 2020, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 21, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Delaware and New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky Timothy J. MacFall (888) 969-4242 (516) 683-3516 Fax: (302) 654-7530 info@rl-legal.com [GN] INSPERITY INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP) between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Insperity investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Insperity class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1902.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (2) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (3) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (4) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 21, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1902.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN] INSYS THERAPEUTICS: October 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Richard Di Donato, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc.; Michael L. Babich; Darryl S. Baker; and John N. Kapoor, Defendants. No. 16-cv-00302-NVW CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT JOHN N. KAPOOR; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Insys Therapeutics, Inc. ("Insys") common stock during the period from March 3, 2015, through January 25, 2016, and were damaged thereby ("Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement between Lead Plaintiff and Defendant John N. Kapoor dated July 1, 2020 ("Stipulation") and the Settlement Notice described below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("Court"), that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative Clark Miller ("Class Representative"), on behalf of himself and the Court-certified Class in the above-captioned securities class action ("Action"), has reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendant John N. Kapoor ("Defendant Kapoor") for consideration of at least Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars in cash ($700,000) with the potential to increase to up to Ten Million Dollars in cash ($10,000,000) (the "Settlement Consideration") in accordance with the terms and schedule set forth in the Stipulation. If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action against Defendant Kapoor only. Please Note: This settlement does not resolve any of the claims asserted against the other defendants in the Action. A hearing will be held on October 15, 2020 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Neil V. Wake at the Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85003, Courtroom 401, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement of the Action with Defendant Kapoor should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendant Kapoor, and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Settlement Notice described below) should be entered; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement of the Action with Defendant Kapoor, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Consideration. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement with Defendant John N. Kapoor; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Settlement Notice"). You may obtain a copy of the Settlement Notice, along with the Claim Form, on the website for the Action, www.InsysRXSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain a copy of the Settlement Notice and the Claim Form by writing to the Claims Administrator at Insys Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170999, Milwaukee, WI 53217; by calling toll free 1-866-905-8102; or by sending an email to info@InsysRXSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you previously submitted or plan to submit a Claim Form in connection with the settlement of the Action with defendant Darryl S. Baker ("Baker Settlement"), it is not necessary to resubmit a Claim Form for this Settlement. Your Baker Settlement Claim Form will also be processed in connection with this Settlement. If you did not previously submit or are not planning to submit a Claim Form in connection with the Baker Settlement and you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement with Defendant Kapoor, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than October 10, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form either in connection with this Settlement or in connection with the Baker Settlement, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement of the Action with Defendant Kapoor, but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement of the Action with Defendant Kapoor, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendant Kapoor's Counsel such that they are received no later than September 24, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. As this Class was previously certified and, in connection therewith, Class Members had the opportunity to exclude themselves from the Class, the Court, in connection with the Baker Settlement, exercised its discretion not to allow a second opportunity for exclusion in connection with the settlement proceedings. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANT KAPOOR, OR DEFENDANT KAPOOR'S COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement of the Action with Defendant Kapoor, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement with Defendant Kapoor should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel. Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: Insys Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170999 Milwaukee, WI 53217 1-866-905-8102 info@InsysRXSecuritiesLitigation.com www.InsysRXSecuritiesLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Class Counsel: KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Johnston de F. Whitman, Jr., Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 - and - Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 info@ktmc.com www.ktmc.com DATED: July 20, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court District of Arizona [GN] J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges investors in J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) to submit their losses now. The September 8, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in a securities fraud class action against J2 Global is fast approaching. Class Period: Oct. 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sep. 8, 2020 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/JCOM Contact An Attorney Now: JCOM@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 J2 Global (JCOM) Securities Fraud Class Action: J2 Global is a digital media roll-up that has acquired 186 businesses since its inception. Its CEO describes the Company's "acquisition system" as its "single great competitive advantage." The complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period misrepresented and concealed that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; and (3) several so-called independent members of the Company board of directors and audit committee were not disinterested. The complaint alleges that investors began to learn the truth on June 30, 2020, when research firm Hindenburg released a scathing report about J2 accusing the Company of engaging in undisclosed related party transactions and accounting manipulation. Hindenburg stated "[w]e … believe J2's opaque acquisition approach has opened the door to egregious insider self-enrichment, which we believe approximates $117 million to $172 million" and concluded "We Believe J2 Global's Equity Is Uninvestable." In response, the price of J2 Global shares traded sharply lower. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving J2 Global intentionally misrepresented the success of its roll-up strategy," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you purchased shares of J2 Global and suffered significant losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding J2 should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email JCOM@hbsslaw.com. [GN] J2 GLOBAL: Kaskela Law Reminds of Reminds of Sept. 8 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC disclosed a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against J2 Global, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased shares of J2 Global's common stock between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). J2 Global investors who suffered investment losses in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or online at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/j2-global-inc/,for additional information about this action and their legal rights and options. As detailed in the complaint, on June 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging that J2 Global had, among other things: (i) failed to disclose questionable transactions with related parties; (ii); utilized misleading accounting to hide underperformance and impending impairments; and (iii) failed to disclose a lack of board independence. Following the release of the Hindenburg Research report, shares of the company's stock fell $6.29 per share, or over 9% in value, to close on June 30, 2020 at $63.21 per share. IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased J2 Global's common stock during the Class Period may, no later than September 8, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Tel: (484) 258 - 1585 (888) 715 - 1740 E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN] J2 GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issued a statement on a securities class action lawsuit against J2 Global Inc.: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of J2 Global, Inc. ("J2 Global") (NASDAQ: JCOM) between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the the United States District Court for the Central District of California. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8149&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3) several so-called independent members of the Company' board of directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in J2 Global you have until September 8, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] JACKSON, MS: Jackson Police Officers to File Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Vicory, writing for Mississippi Clarion Ledger, reports that several Jackson police officers plan to file a class action lawsuit against top brass in the Jackson Police Department and its chief, James Davis, for what they say is corruption and discrimination inside the department. Local attorney Abby Robinson held a press conference on July 21 announcing the impending legal action. Robinson is representing more than two dozen current and former JPD officers. Robinson, on behalf of her clients, said she plans to sue the city and Davis, as well as two deputy chiefs and Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba for a wide range of alleged violations that span the gamut from corruption to due process to fraud to breach of contract. She filed a notice of claim with the city outlining her intentions to sue on July 14. Robinson must wait 90 days from that day before filing a lawsuit, according to state law. In the notice, Robinson claims city officials and individuals in the police department have prevented officers from disclosing public information and fostered a demeaning and unprofessional environment. Among the officers in the lawsuit is Myron Smith who was fired earlier in July after an internal investigation concluded he had violated department policy and procedure. Smith was captured on a cellphone video grabbing a young man by the neck, yelling at him and stretching his head onto the back of a vehicle as a bystander tries to loosen his grip on the man. Robinson said Smith was terminated without due process. The attorney is also representing former JPD patrol officer Rakasha Adams. Adams was involved in two officer-involved shooting incidents that led to a death. Adams in November of 2017 shot and killed an unidentified man in the chest when he brandished a knife and allegedly threatened her. She was also one of two officers involved in the shooting death of 21-year-old Crystalline Barnes in January of 2018 after Barnes allegedly tried to run the officers over. A Hinds County Grand Jury declined to indict Adams for homicide in either shooting. Barnes' family filed a $10 million federal lawsuit against JPD that accused the department of using excessive force in violation of constitutional rights. Chief Davis first suspended Adams for three months for violations of the department's vehicular pursuit general orders. Adams appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission which affirmed the chief's decision in May of 2019. She is now working a desk job. Robinson on Jul 21, with Adams standing behind her, said the city has cleared Adams of one of the shooting deaths, but has yet to give her a clear answer on the other. Robinson said she believes it is a tactic to get Adams to quit. "So, just leave her out there paid on taxpayer dollars and we (JPD) are just going to make her quit. We put her on enough of hell, she's going to leave," Robinson said. Robinson also claimed on July 21 one of her clients, an openly gay officer, was bullied by James Davis for his sexual orientation. She further alleges female officers in the department have "been retaliated against" and denied promotion because of their gender. 'Completely false,' Chief Davis responds Davis on July 22 called the lawsuit "completely false." He also questioned the timing and motive of the lawsuit. Abby Robinson's husband, former assistant chief Ricky Robinson, had been demoted to sergeant just days before the lawsuit was filed, he said. "What's the motive?" Davis asked. "You have an assistant chief who is demoted and then a lawsuit is filed from his wife's law firm. These are personnel issues. How would a law firm know about personnel issues." Davis added that Robinson would have participated in decisions made by the department up until his demotion, including several of those in the lawsuit. "He (Robinson) was appointed as assistant chief. Every write up goes to him before it gets to me. He played a key part in all of these preliminary actions," Davis said. Davis said he is unaware of many of the other complaints in the lawsuit, including the allegations of harassment due to an officer's sexual orientation. "All of those other complaints are untrue. They're absolutely false. I have never heard of some of these individuals," he said. Davis -- citing personnel exemptions -- declined to say why Robinson was demoted. It is uncertain if it had anything to do with a recent report from WLBT-TV. The station uncovered earlier this year that Robinson had overturned a decision by two other command staff officers to hire Xavier Hill to oversee the city's impound lot. Hill, who was originally rejected due to a criminal record, was fired from the department after admitting to stealing property from the lot, the station reported. Abby Robinson in her July 21 press conference said there was no conflict of interest in excluding her husband as a witness in the lawsuit. "There is absolutely no conflict of interest. My husband is under no agreement contractually with the city of Jackson not to tell the public," she said. She was not immediately available from comment on July 22. [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Unbehagen Sues to Obtain Fees Owed to PPP Agents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Unbehagen Tax and Accounting, Inc., a Florida corporation; Howard Markowitz PA CPA, a Florida professional corporation; and Unlimited Financial Funding, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; individually and on behalf of similarly situated businesses and individuals v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., SOUTH STATE BANK, N.A., PNC BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SYNOVUS TRUST COMPANY, N.A., RADIUS BANK, ADDITION FINANCIAL, CITIZENS FIRST BANK, INC., TD BANK, N.A., TRUSTCO BANK, FAIRWINDS CREDIT UNION, TRUIST BANK, CITIZENS BANK, THE BANK OF TAMPA, HANCOCK WHITNEY BANK, FLAGSHIP BANK, FIRST CITRUS BANK, USF FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, THE FIRST, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, SEACOAST NATIONAL BANK, PRIME MERIDIAN BANK, MIDWEST REGIONAL BANK, REGIONS BANK, STEARNS BANK, N.A., and VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 8:20-cv-01709 (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2020), seeks to obtain fees owed to the Plaintiffs as a result of their work as PPP Agents. The PPP Agents assisted small- and medium-sized business borrowers in obtaining Federally-guaranteed loans through the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), a Federal bail-out program implemented to provide businesses with loans to combat the economic impact of COVID-19. Federal regulations require the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class for their work as Agents under the PPP. The Agents were retained not by the Defendants, but directly by the Borrowers to serve as their representatives in the process and help them obtain PPP loans. Despite Federal regulations requiring that agent fees ("Agent Fees") be paid to the Plaintiffs for their work, the Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Instead, the Defendants have kept the PPP Agent Fees for themselves, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs: Unbehagen is an advisory firm that focuses on tax, accounting and insurance services aimed at small- and mid-sized businesses; Markowitz provides its clients with a broad range of accounting, tax, bookkeeping, payroll and consulting services; and Unlimited works with small business owners to obtain financing relationships to support their businesses. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Popok, Esq. Leon N. Patricios, Esq. Mitchell G. Mandell, Esq. ZUMPANO PATRICIOS & POPOK, PLLC 417 Fifth Avenue, Suite 826 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 381-9999 Facsimile: (212) 320-0332 - and - ZUMPANO PATRICIOS, P.A. 312 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 444-5565 Facsimile: (305) 444-8588 - and - Mark Geragos, Esq. Ben Meiselas, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 625-3900 Facsimile: (213) 232-3255 - and - Michael E. Adler, Esq. GRAYLAW GROUP, INC. 26500 Agoura Road, #102-127 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 532-2833 Facsimile: (818) 532-2834 - and - Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq. Nitoj P. Singh, Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 433-1700 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593 KIDZ KORNER: Mendoza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Mendoza, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KIDZ KORNER OF NEW ROCHELLE INC. (D/B/A KIDZ KORNER), KIDZ KORNER OF SCARSDALE INC. (D/B/A KIDZ KORNER), IVY RENTZ, and JOY FARMER, Case No. 1:20-cv-05761 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. The Plaintiff was employed as a head teacher at the Defendants' preschools. The Defendants own, operate, or control preschools, located in New Rochelle and Scarsdale, New York, under the name "Kidz Korner."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 KINGOLD JEWELRY: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 31 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Kingold Jewelry, Inc. ("Kingold" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: KGJI) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Kingold securities between March 15, 2018 and June 28, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/kgji. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kingold used fake gold as collateral to fraudulently secure loans; (2) consequently, the Company would face creditor lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/kgji or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Kingold you have until August 31, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] KINGOLD JEWELRY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 31 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming August 31, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Kingold Jewelry, Inc. ("Kingold" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: KGJI) securities between March 15, 2018 and June 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Kingold investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/kingold-jewelry-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On June 29, 2020, multiple news outlets reported that Kingold may have used counterfeit gold as collateral to secure loans from more than a dozen Chinese financial institutions. On this news, Kingold's share price fell $0.27 per share, or more than 24%, to close at $0.85 per share on June 29, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Kingold used fake gold as collateral to fraudulently secure loans; (2) that consequently, the Company would face creditor lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Kingold securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 31, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] KIRKLAND LAKE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming August 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. ("Kirkland" or "the Company") (NYSE: KL) securities between January 8, 2018 and November 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") If you suffered a loss on your Kirkland investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/kirkland-lake-gold-ltd/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On November 25, 2019, Kirkland announced that it would acquire Detour Gold Corporation ("Detour") for $3.68 billion. The deal was dilutive to Kirkland's reserve grade: while Kirkland's reserve grade was 25 g/t before the deal, Detour's reserve grade was 0.96 g/t. Moreover, the deal would lead to a 30% increase in Kirkland's all-in sustaining costs. On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $8.18, or over 17%, to close at $39.44 per share on November 25, 2019. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (2) that as a result of the known, but undisclosed, impending acquisition of Detour Gold Corporation, the Company's projections relating to its risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading; (3) that the Company's financial statements and projections were not fairly presented in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards; and (4) that based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Kirkland securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 28, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN] KNOX COUNTY, TN: Amble Appeals E.D. Tenn. Ruling to Sixth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Michael Amble, et al., filed an appeal from a district court ruling issued in their lawsuit entitled Michael Amble, et al. v. Knox County, Tennessee, Case No. 3:18-cv-00538, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 2, 2020, the Hon. Judge Thomas A. Varlan entered an order: 1. granting in part Plaintiffs' motion to amend their response to Defendant's motion to dismiss and for leave to file excess, to the extent that the Court considers Plaintiffs' second amended complaint the operative complaint; 2. denying as moot Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint and the motions related thereto; 3. proceeding on the Plaintiff Hicks's claim that Defendant's video visitation policy violates his constitutional rights; 4. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 5. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for hearing on class certification. According to Judge Varlan, "the Court would be amenable to granting class certification for a claim that Defendant's video visitation policy violates the constitutional rights of the inmates to whom Defendant has applied or will apply it. However, the amended motion for class certification seeks certification of 'the class of people previously incarcerated, presently incarcerated, or who will be incarcerated, at the Knox County Jail facilities' and two sub-classes of (1) 'pretrial detainees' and (2) 'TDOC-sentenced inmates who are incarcerated or who will be incarcerated at these locations.' This proposed class is too broad for the sole remaining claim, as the second amended complaint specifies that Defendant implemented this policy on April 14, 2015 and, if Defendant does implement this video visitation policy in the future, the policy will not affect all future inmates. Moreover, it is unclear if any subclasses would be needed for this remaining claim. Additionally, [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(c)(1)(B) requires that if the Court decides to enter a certification order, that order must not only define the class, but also appoint class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). While it seems likely that the attorneys who have appeared in this matter on behalf of all Plaintiffs also seek to represent any certified class under Rule 23(g), they have not made any such request, nor have they provided information relevant to the issues that the Court "must consider" in determining whether to appoint them as counsel Thus, the amended motion to certify class will be denied without prejudice. Moreover, as the remaining issues regarding class certification can be easily addressed in a motion, the motion for hearing on the class certification will be denied." The appellate case is captioned as Michael Amble, et al. v. Knox County, Tennessee, Case No. 20-5839, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL AMBLE, FLOYD COULSON, JOHN HICKS, ALONZO HOSKINS, DAVID JOHNSON, CURTIS LANE, JESSICA MASE, JESSICA MORGAN, MICHAEL RICE, RICK SAYLES, ROBERT THOMAS, and MATTHEW WALLS, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, are represented by: Francis L. Lloyd, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS L. LLOYD, JR. 9111 Cross Park Drive, Suite D-200 Knoxville, TN 37923 Telephone: (865) 470-407 E-mail: FLLloydJr@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE is represented by: David S. Wigler, Esq. KNOX COUNTY LAW DIRECTOR'S OFFICE 400 Main Street, Suite 612 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 215-2327 LITTLE ROCK: Appellate Court Upholds $225,000 Legal Fees in Nelson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees in the appellate case, CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, Appellant, v. LADONNA NELSON, AS PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF RICKY NELSON INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF CHARLES PIAZZA, OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellee, Case No. CV-19-293, (Ark.). In May 2014, LaDonna Nelson filed an illegal-exaction lawsuit seeking to recover fees that the City of Little Rock illegally imposed on traffic-court defendants in Little Rock District Court over a period of years. Nelson filed an amended complaint and moved for class certification of her claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The City moved to dismiss Nelson's amended complaint and opposed her motion for class certification. The circuit court dismissed Nelson's illegal-exaction claim and granted a motion to certify a class of those defendants who had paid their traffic-court installment fees at least 30 days early. By August 2018, a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury found the City had violated the Arkansas Civil Right Act in charging excessive installment fees in traffic court. In December 2018, the circuit court entered an order awarding $8,760 in damages and directing the City to return improperly charged installment fees to certain members of the class. In January 2019, Nelson filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, seeking $397,542.42 in attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and an enhancement of $10,000 for her service to the class. The City opposed the move. In March 2019, the circuit court awarded Plaintiff $25,000 in attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be paid by the City to Holleman & Associates, P.A. Plaintiff is also awarded $10,000 as enhancement for services to the class. The City timely appealed the circuit court ruling. On appeal, the City argued that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting Nelson's attorneys'-fee motion in the amount of $225,000 and awarding a $10,000 enhancement fee to Nelson as the class representative. In the present case, the circuit court reduced Nelson's initial request for attorneys' fees from $397,542.42 to $225,000. The Appellate Court agrees with the circuit court's ruling. Because of the circuit court's intimate acquaintance with the record and the quality of counsel's services rendered, the circuit court had a superior opportunity to assess the critical factors before it, and an award of attorneys' fees will therefore not be set aside absent an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Appellate Court holds that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Nelson $225,000 in attorneys' fees. The City also contends that the $10,000 enhancement fee is unreasonable and should have been reduced. However, in its brief, the City does not provide any citation to authority to support its argument to reduce the enhancement, nor does it provide any substantive argument for any reduction. Thus, the Appellate Court held it will not consider arguments not supported by convincing argument or citation to legal authority. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's January 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/uqc8gd5 from Leagle.com Caleb Garcia and Rick D. Hogan, Office of the City Attorney, for appellant. Holleman & Associates, P.A., by: John Holleman and Timothy A. Steadman, 1008 W 2nd St, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, for appellee. LOUISIANA: Bar Owners File Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------- klfy.com reports that bar owners in Louisiana are filing a class-action law suit against the state. Over a dozen bar owners from across Acadiana met with lawyers at Quarter Tavern Bar in New Iberia to discuss the lawsuit. "We're having as many local bar owners as we can get together. We have people here from Terrebonne parish, Lafayette parish, Iberia parish," the owner of Quarter Tavern, Ty Boudoin, said. Boudoin says he and other bar owners met with Governor John Bel Edwards attorneys last week about re-opening bars, but the meeting was not fruitful. "We tried working with them. They don't want to work with us, so we feel like this is our next step- the only step we can take," he said. Boudoin says he started working on the class action suit the Monday after Governor Edwards said all bars had to shut down again. "He said on TV the good wouldn't have to suffer for the bad, so why are we shut down? As you can see, 90% of my business is outside and yet he couldn't give me an answer about why we're closed," he added. The bar owners say all they want out of the lawsuit is to be allowed to open. "We're not taking money or anything out of this. All we want to do is open back up and be on the same playing field as everybody else. I can go to a restaurant right now. I can go to a casino. I can go to a bowling alley and sit at a bar and drink, yet you can't come to a bar and sit outside and drink," he told News Ten. The owners say they are welcoming any bar owners in Louisiana to join their class action lawsuit against Louisiana. Ty Boudoin says anyone interested in joining the lawsuit can contact him at 337-578-5298.[GN] LYFT INC: Cunningham Denied Prelim. Injunction in Prisoners Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MELODY CUNNINGHAM, FRUNWIMANCHO, MARTIN EL KOUSSA, and VLADIMIR LEONIDAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LYFT, INC., LOGAN GREEN, and JOHNZIMMER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11974-IT (D. Mass.), Judge Indira Talwai of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Emergency Motion to Confirm Stay Pending Appeal, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Lyft is a company that enables riders to obtain transportation to certain destinations. Riders arrange a ride through Lyft's mobile phone application and indicate where they want a driver to pick them up. Lyft offers the ride to available drivers in the same geographic area and a driver accepts the ride through the App. To drive for Lyft, a potential driver must agree to Lyft's Terms of Service. In agreeing to the Terms, the driver affirms that, among other requirements, he or she owns, or has the legal right to operate the vehicle in which the driver will transport customers. Lyft considers its drivers to be "independent contractors," and does not provide them sick leave benefits. Between October 2018 and October 2019, approximately 57,000 drivers drove for Lyft in Massachusetts, providing rides to over two million passengers. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected Lyft's operations. As a result of the danger posed by the disease, some drivers have chosen to stop driving entirely. The drivers report much lower demand for rides during the pandemic. Drivers continued to drive despite feeling sick because they needed income to pay their living expenses. They also feared being deactivated if they cancelled too many rides. The putative class action, brought by Plaintiffs Cunningham, Mancho, El Koussa, and Leonidas, on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated individuals in Massachusetts who drive for Defendant Lyft, seeks a declaratory judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, and asserts claims of misclassification as independent contractors under M.G.L. c. 149, Section 148B, and for expense reimbursement, minimum wages, overtime and earned sick time under M.G.L. c. 149, Sections 148, 148B, 148C, and M.G.L. c. 151, Sections 1, 1A. Cunningham filed the action, on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated Lyft drivers in Massachusetts, alleging misclassification and non-payment of minimum wages and overtime by Lyft and its CEO Green and President John Zimmer. The complaint has been amended twice, adding Plaintiffs Mancho, El Koussa and Leonidas, and a claim for paid sick time. The Defendants responded with a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration, asserting that the Plaintiffs were bound to individually arbitrate their claims. While their motion was pending, the global COVID-19 pandemic arose. In light of the pandemic, the Plaintiffs filed the pending Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, asserting that Lyft's failure to provide drivers with paid sick time required emergency redress. The Plaintiffs' motion seeks, in light of the extraordinary circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, an emergency preliminary injunction enjoining Lyft from misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors. The Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration before addressing the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion. The Defendants immediately appealed, and filed the pending Emergency Motion to Confirm Stay Pending Appeal. They assert that, upon their filing of their Notice of Appeal, the Court was divested of jurisdiction to act on any aspect of the case. Because the Court is divested of jurisdiction to act on those aspects of the case involved in the appeal but is not precluded from issuing preliminary injunctive relief to preserve the status quo, Judge Talwai granted the Defendants' motion to stay as to their obligation to file an Answer to the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint and as to discovery, but denied as to consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. The Court finds that in the absence of a stay, the Defendants would be required to answer the complaint and the parties would engage in discovery. In Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Ref. Co., a case that predated onSect 16(a) of the FAA, the First Circuit stayed discovery pending resolution of an arbitrability appeal. The First Circuit explained that a court order of discovery would be affirmatively inimical to the appellee's obligation to arbitrate and that if arbitration is to be had of the entire dispute, appellee's right to discovery must be far more restricted than if the case remains in a federal court for plenary trial. The court determined a stay of discovery was appropriate because, until it is determined whether the action has been properly brought, the appellee should not receive unnecessary fruits thereof. The Plaintiffs have made no argument that a stay of discovery or of the Defendants' obligation to answer the complaint should not similarly apply in the case. Accordingly, following Lummus Co., the Court stayed the action as to the Defendants' obligation to answer the complaint and as to discovery. Although the Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying misclassification claim, the balance of equities weigh in the Plaintiffs' favor, and the requested injunction would support rather than harm the public interest, the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction as the Plaintiffs have not shown irreparable harm. Because the Plaintiffs' motion was filed as an emergency motion based on the current health crisis, and because the Court has previously considered and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for broader relief, the Court treats this emergency motion as seeking classification of drivers as employees for purposes of paid sick time only. To the extent that the Plaintiffs are arguing that their own health is endangered by driving when sick, the Court cannot find that the Defendants are the legal cause of any such harm. Lyft has not threatened to terminate drivers if they do not drive, and to the contrary, has instructed drivers not to drive if they are sick. As to the health of Lyft passengers and the general public, the Court agrees that a further purpose of sick time is to help decrease the spread of disease, and that if drivers drive while sick, they may well be spreading disease. The potential harm to the public, however, is not the same as harm to the Plaintiffs themselves. And while Lyft's determination to fight payment of sick leave benefits may prove short-sighted if riders fear that Lyft drivers are driving while sick because they cannot afford to be home without sick time, the Court does not find that interference with thee purpose amounts to an irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs themselves. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/nP1ZII from Leagle.com. MARATHON OIL: Callaway Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- William Callaway, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00863-JKP (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the other workers like him regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week, according to the complaint. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid these workers a daily rate with no overtime pay. The Plaintiff has performed work for Marathon as an inspector from April 2015 through April 2018. Marathon is a private oil and gas company headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com MASS GENERAL: Patients File Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Jessica Bartlett, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that Mass General Brigham and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are facing a class action lawsuit from two patients who allege that the health system fed personally identifiable information about them to Facebook, Google and other companies. [GN] MCDERMOTT INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issued a statement on a class action lawsuit against McDermott International Inc.: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of McDermott International, Inc. (NYSE:MDR) (OTC PINK:MDRIQ) between September 20, 2019 and January 23, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mcdermott-international-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=5&prid=8112 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.There is no cost or obligation to you. A complaint has been filed against McDermott's President, Chief Executive Officer and Board Member David Dickson, its Former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Stuart A. Spence, and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Christopher A. Krummel. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made and caused McDermott to make materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding the Company's sale of its asset Lummus Technology. Plaintiffs allege that these statements were made with the intent to conceal the acute liquidity crisis McDermott actually faced, to provide the Company time to prepare a prepackaged plan of reorganization with its secured lenders and other stakeholders, and to avoid a freefall Chapter 11 filing. If you suffered a loss in McDermott you have until September 16, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] MCDERMOTT INT'L: Rosen Law Files Class Action --------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of McDermott International, Inc. between September 20, 2019 and January 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for McDermott investors under the federal securities laws. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 16, 2020. To join the McDermott class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1901.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose that they knowingly and/or recklessly made, and caused McDermott to make, materially false and misleading statements, and/or omit material facts regarding the sale of Lummus Technology, an asset of McDermott. These statements were made with the intent to conceal the acute liquidity crisis McDermott actually faced, to provide the Company time to prepare a prepackaged plan of reorganization with its secured lenders and other stakeholders, and to avoid a freefall Chapter 11 filing. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1901.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN] MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 18 disclosed that it has filed the initial federal securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired McDermott International, Inc. (Other OTC: MDRIQ) securities between September 20, 2019 and January 23, 2020, both days inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is styled John Arden Ahnefeldt, Robert Brower, Jr., Robert Brower, Sr., Khanh L. Bui, Jignesh Chandarana, Krutika Chandarana, Amira Yousuf Chowdhury, Christopher Coligado, Daniel Gad, Edwin Howell, Sioe Lie Howell, Darren Hunting, Anne Ingledew, Shital Mehta, Thomas Carl Rabin, Adam Shultz, Amit Somani, Jayaprakash Srinivasan, Aarthi Srinivasan, Christopher Swedlow, and Alexandre Tazi v. David Dickson, Stuart A. Spence, and Christopher A. Krummel; 4:20-cv-02539 (S.D. TX). Investors who purchased McDermott International, Inc. securities during the Class Period and suffered losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain a copy of the filed complaint and additional information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in McDermott International, Inc. securities purchased during the Class Period, you may, no later than September 16, 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in McDermott International, Inc. McDermott International, Inc. ("McDermott" or the "Company") provides engineering, project management, and facility management services to a variety of customers in the energy and power industries. On September 20, 2019, McDermott announced in a press release its recent receipt of unsolicited approaches to acquire Lummus Technology, McDermott's industry leading technology business with a valuation exceeding $2.5 billion. McDermott told investors that it was "exploring strategic alternatives to unlock the value of Lummus Technology," that the "process of exploring strategic alternatives is part of our ongoing efforts intended to improve McDermott's capital structure," and "we plan to use the proceeds from any transaction involving Lummus Technology to strengthen our balance sheet." These disclosures received widespread attention and the price for McDermott common stock increased 50% in premarket trading to close on that day at $2.01 per share, up 27.22%. The disclosures were materially misleading. There was not any plan for a near-term sale of Lummus Technology to strengthen McDermott's balance sheet. The disclosures were made as part of a scheme to artificially inflate the market price of McDermott's common stock, calm the market and allow the Company to negotiate a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring plan. On January 21, 2020, the truth emerged when McDermott announced its entry of a Restructuring Support Agreement in connection with a Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization. After the announcement, trading of McDermott common stock was halted. When it resumed, the price for McDermott common stock plummeted to close at $0.12 per share. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of McDermott publicly traded securities during the Class Period. Plaintiffs are represented by Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. Wolf Haldenstein, with offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego, is a nationally recognized firm specializing in the prosecution of securities, antitrust, and consumer fraud actions. Wolf Haldenstein's reputation and expertise in class action litigation has been repeatedly recognized by courts across the country, and the firm has achieved over $7 billion in recoveries for shareholders. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via email at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Malcolm T. Brown, Esq., Thomas H. Burt, Esq. Email: gstone@whafh.com, brown@whafh.com, burt@whafh.com, or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN] MDL 2792: Deal in Suit Over Defective Washing Machine Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted final approval of the class settlement in IN RE: SAMSUNG TOP-LOAD WASHING MACHINE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This document relates to: ALL CASES, MDL Case No. 17-ml-2792-D (W.D. Okla.). The case is a consolidated multidistrict class action lawsuit. The Plaintiffs filed suit in various jurisdictions against Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., ("Defendants"), and in some cases also against Defendant Retailers Best Buy Co., Inc., The Home Depot, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Lowe's Companies, Inc., Lowe's Home Center, LLC, and Sears Holdings Corporation ("Defendant Retailers"). The Settlement Class includes every resident of the United States or its territories who was the original purchaser of certain washing machines for household use. The full definition of the Settlement Class draws certain, well-defined and narrow exclusions and identifies the relevant washer models. The Settlement Class consists of approximately 2.8 million people. The Plaintiffs alleged that certain Samsung top-load washing machines had experienced detachment of their tops from the washing machine chassis, and/or drain-pump failure during operation. After negotiations before a skilled mediator, on June 1, 2018, the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Defendant Retailers filed a Settlement Agreement with the District Court to fully resolve the Consolidated MDL Lawsuit. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement in January 2019. The Court scheduled an October 7, 2019 fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement. John Douglas Morgan and Colleen Kennedy filed separate objections on the matter. From the outset of the October 2019 hearing, the Court noted certain concerns with the Settlement Agreement and asked the Parties to preliminarily address them. It then heard arguments from the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, Objector Morgan (through counsel, M. Frank Bednarz), and Objector Kennedy (through counsel, Robert H. Solomon). Subsequently, the Court required the Parties and Objectors to submit briefs in order to more deliberately address the Court's concerns. All have since submitted their briefs and all related filings. Negotiation of the Settlement Agreement followed a recall of the same washing machines at the center of the litigation. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission initiated the voluntary recall on Nov. 4, 2016, to address the circumstances where a washer's top detaches from the washer's chassis during operation. The ongoing voluntary recall offers those who participate two alternative forms of relief: a rebate or repair. First, the voluntary recall offers a free in-home repair that includes reinforcement of the washer's top and a free one-year extension of the manufacturer's warranty (the "Recall Repair"). As a second option, it offers a rebate to be applied toward the purchase of a new Samsung or other brand washing machine, along with free installation of the new unit and removal of the old unit (the "Recall Rebate"). The Parties reached the Settlement Agreement after the voluntary recall program. The Settlement Agreement specifically does not release property damage or personal injury claims. It provides compensation or other relief to the millions encompassed by the Settlement Class, depending on their specific circumstances. In some instances, the relief provided by the Settlement Agreement is explicitly tied to the relief provided for by the voluntary recall detailed. The Settlement Agreement affords five forms of relief to those who have submitted a valid claim form: 1. Enhanced Minimum Recall Rebate: It is an enhanced rebate for Claimants who have already received, or will receive, a Recall Rebate for buying a new washing machine under Samsung's voluntary recall. If the rebate they received was worth less than 15.5% of the estimated price of the recalled machine, under the Settlement Agreement, these Claimants will receive an additional rebate to make up a total of 15.5% of the price of the recalled washing machine. 2. Recall Repair Additional Benefit: For Claimants who select a Recall Repair, it is a coupon entitling Claimants or an immediate household member to a $25 rebate, to be applied toward the purchase of new Samsung microwave. In the alternative, the Settlement Agreement offers between $50 and $85 off the purchase of a new Samsung major appliance (available for appliances which cost no less than $900), to be used within one year of final approval. 3. Commitment for Recall Repair: For Claimants who select a Recall Repair under the voluntary recall program after they receive notice of the Settlement Agreement, Samsung must efficiently fulfill its voluntary recall within 14 days of the request or send Claimants a one-time $50 cash-equivalent card. 4. Top Separation Relief: For up to seven years after the date of purchase, Claimants who can document top separation of their washing machine can receive a full refund (to the extent not already provided) and up to $400 in expenses, capped at $50 in cleanup costs. 5. Drain-Pump Relief: Claimants who can document expenses related to a drain-pump failure can receive up to $400 in expenses, capped at $50 in cleanup costs. Past repair costs of up to $150 can also be paid, if documented. Drain-pump repairs will be performed by Samsung for almost four years after the Notice Date. The Defendants further agreed to pay for attorneys' expenses and fees without impacting the relief provided to the Settlement Class, and all administration and notice expenses related to the Settlement Agreement. Because the Settlement Class meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court granted final class certification for settlement purposes. The Settlement Class is defined as: Every resident of the United States or its territories who was the original purchaser of a new Washer for household use. All persons named in the list submitted to the Court as having filed timely exclusions with the Settlement Administrator are excluded from the Settlement Class and will not be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Otherwise, each individual or entity that falls within the definition of the Settlement Class will be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/FIbmEZ from Leagle.com. MIDLAND CREDIT: Brown Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tobi Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-03349 (E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Pettway Sues in E.D.N.Y. Alleging FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Pettway, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03355 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com MISO ROBOTICS: Winegard Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miso Robotics, Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Miso Robotics, Inc. doing business as: www.misorobotics.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-03354 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Miso Robotics, Inc., manufactures robotic machineries. The Company designs and develops technology that assists and empowers chefs to make food perfectly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 Email: msegal@segallegal.com MYCOMPUTERCAREER.COM INC: Young Sues Over Inaccessible Web Site --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MYCOMPUTERCAREER.COM, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05789 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site, https://www.mycomputercareer.edu/, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant violates the ADA. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his computer. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. MYCOMPUTERCAREER.COM, INC. operates the MyComputerCareer online college across the United States, including the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com NESPRESSO USA: Baber Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM BABER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. NESPRESSO USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; NESTLE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. (Filed June 3, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 22, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06533 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code. Nespresso provides coffee machines and accessories. The Company offers cups, spoons, milk frothers, and capsule dispensers. Nestle produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage products. The Company offers bakery, chocolates, confectionery, snacks, coffee, fruit and vegetable juices, ice creams, and frozen food products.[BN] Defendant Nespresso is represented by: Linda Claxton, Esq. Kathleen J. Choi, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. Sage S. Stone, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletree.com kathleen.choi@ogletree.com melis.atalay@ogletree.com sage.stone@ogletree.com NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended C.P. IDEA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in a class action complaint by disabled children against the New Jersey Department of Education. The case is C.P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor child; D.O., individually and on behalf of M.O., a minor child; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor child; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor child; JOHN and JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of their minor child, JAMES DOE; Y.H.S. and H.Y., individually and on behalf of their minor child, C.H.S.; J.M. and E.M. on behalf of their minor children, C.M. and E.M.; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M.; ROBERTA ROE, on behalf of her minor child ROBIN ROE; E.P., individually and on behalf of her minor child, Ea.P; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and LAMONT REPOLLET, Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-12807 (D. N.J.). The Plaintiffs, a putative class of disabled minor children and their parents, seek injunctive relief from what they allege is New Jersey's systemic mishandling of special education due process petitions, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). On May 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in the matter. Shortly thereafter, on Aug. 26, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. On Oct. 15, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint. On Oct. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification and simultaneously moved for the first of two preliminary injunctions. On Jan. 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for a second preliminary injunction on separate grounds. The parties fully briefed each of these motions, and on Feb. 18, 2020, the Court entertained oral argument on them. That hearing was continued on March 2, 2020. During oral argument on Feb. 18, 2020, for reasons expressed on the record, the Court invited the Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint to more fully explain certain factual allegations; the Plaintiffs did so on Feb. 27, 2020. At its most rudimentary level, the Plaintiffs allege that (1) the IDEA requires due process petitions be decided within 45 days unless specific adjournments are requested by the parties; (2) the Defendants systemically fail to decide due process petitions within that timeframe, in violation of the 45 Day Rule and the right of a parent to participate in a disabled child's education; and (3) the Plaintiffs have been harmed, and will continue to suffer further harm, because of the Defendants' non-compliance with the IDEA. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint contains two counts. Count one alleges the NJDOE systemically violates the IDEA by failing to comply with the 45-Day Rule. Count two seeks injunctive relief for that violation against the New Jersey Department of Education ("NJDOE")'s commissioner, Lamont Repollet, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1983. With the exception of the E.M. Family, the Plaintiffs are disabled children and their parents who have filed due process petitions with the NJDOE, who's petitions were transferred to OAL for a due process hearing, and who's petitions took more than 45 days to resolve after being transferred to the OAL, after deducting those days related to specific adjournments requested by the parties. For some Plaintiffs, their matters were significantly delayed at the Office of Administrative Law ("OAL"), relief was ultimately granted in favor of the disabled child, and the disabled child was deprived of special education benefits that were later awarded by an ALJ during the delayed resolution period. For other Plaintiffs, the OAL did not hold a timely hearing and ultimately, the disabled child and the school mutually agreed, through settlement, that the child was entitled to benefits under the IDEA. Nearly all the Plaintiffs allege that the State's delays forced them to compromise their claims more than they would have otherwise, as doing so was the only way to obtain necessary benefits for the disabled children. Similarly, many Plaintiffs allege that these delays have chilled their willingness to pursue additional, necessary relief from the OAL and the NJDOE. Therefore, due to the Defendants' non-compliance with federal law, the Plaintiffs specifically allege they were denied substantive rights provided for by the IDEA. They seek injunctive relief as remedy. On March 26, 2020, Defendants NJDOE and Repollet moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the Motion. The Defendants' Motion attacks the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on both jurisdictional (standing and mootness) and non-jurisdictional (failure to state a claim) grounds. The Defendants advance four arguments in support of their Motion. First, Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims advanced by the C.P. Family, the D.O. Family, the S.B.C. Family, the A.S. Family, the Y.H.S. Family, the C.M. Family, the K.M. Family, the Roe Family, and the E.P. Family ("Former NJOAL Plaintiffs") because the Former NJOAL Plaintiffs have not established Article III standing or otherwise fail to state a claim as their controversies present only minor procedural deficiencies that are not actionable under the IDEA, and their matters have been resolved, rendering their claims moot. Second, Defendants argue the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Doe Family's claims because the Doe Family has not exhausted their administrative remedies. In their third and fourth arguments, Defendants contend that Repollet is not subject to individual liability under either the IDEA or Section 1983, and therefore, dismissal of those claims against him is warranted. While the Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), in the case, the legal standard to be applied under each rule is the same: whether the Plaintiffs state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge Hillman is satisfied that the injuries suffered are traceable to Defendants, who are the ones perpetrating the harm the Plaintiffs allege. Additionally, the injuries alleged and the risk that they will reoccur may be redressed by this Court's resolution of the injunctive relief applications and § 1983 claims in the Plaintiffs' favor. As such, Judge Hillman is satisfied that all the Plaintiffs, except for the E.M. Family, have standing to proceed. The Doe Family's allegations are of the type excepted from the exhaustion requirement and they have adequate standing to proceed as well. The Court next addresses the Defendants' argument that the Former NJOAL Plaintiffs' claims are moot because their due process petitions have been disposed of through the administrative process, leaving no live controversies left to litigate. Judge Hillman (i) finds that challenges to the adequacy of a state's compliance with the 45 Day Rule are inherently short enough in duration that such challenges may regularly escape judicial review; (ii) is satisfied that the violations Plaintiffs allege are capable of repetition; (iii) the Plaintiffs do not pursue IDEA claims against Repollet; and (iv) the Second Amended Complaint clearly alleges an ongoing violation of federal law, more specifically New Jersey's non-compliance with the IDEA's 45 Day Rule. The Court finds that these Plaintiffs have made out plausible claims that the system for the adjudication of IDEA disputes by the administrative state in New Jersey is profoundly broken and routinely violates the federal laws designed to insure that the most vulnerable children remain the priority all should agree they are, not only in these times, but at all times. For the reasons expressed in his Opinion, Judge Hillman granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. The claims advanced by the E.M. Family will be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. All other claims by all other Plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint is denied as moot. All remaining motions will be decided in due course and by separate Opinion and Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/01AWqo from Leagle.com. CATHERINE MERINO REISMAN, REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP, HADDONFIELD, NJ, LISA MARIE QUARTAROLO -- lquartarolo@johnruelaw.com -- JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LLC, LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ, DAVID R. GILES, SOUTH ORANGE, NJ, DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER, LAW OFFICE OF DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER LLC, PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ, DONALD A. SOUTAR -- dsoutar@johnruelaw.com -- JOHN RUE AND ASSOCIATES, SPARTA, NJ, JEFFREY IAN WASSERMAN -- jwasserman@skoloffwolfe.com -- WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC, FLORHAM PARK, NJ, KRISTA LYNN HALEY, JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, SPARTA, NJ, SARAN QIANA EDWARDS, JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, SPARTA, NJ, JOHN DOUGLAS RUE -- john@johnruelaw.com -- JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ, Counsel for Plaintiffs C.P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor; D.O., individually and on behalf of M.O., a minor; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor; John Doe, individually and on behalf of James Doe, a minor; Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of James Doe, a minor; Y.H.S., individually and on behalf of C.H.S., a minor; H.Y., individually and on behalf of C.H.S., a minor; J.M., individually and on behalf of E.M., a minor; E.M., individually and on behalf of C.M., a minor; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M., a minor. THOMAS JOSEPH O'LEARY, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, NEWARK, NJ, DAVID DANA CRAMER -- dcramer@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, NEWARK, NJ, ZAHIRE DESIREE ESTRELLA-CHAMBERS, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, NEWARK, NJ, CATHERINE MERINO REISMAN, REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP, HADDONFIELD, NJ, LISA MARIE QUARTAROLO, JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LLC, LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ, DAVID R. GILES, SOUTH ORANGE, NJ, DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER, LAW OFFICE OF DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER LLC, PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ, DONALD A. SOUTAR, JOHN RUE AND ASSOCIATES, SPARTA, NJ, JEFFREY IAN WASSERMAN, WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC, FLORHAM PARK, NJ, KRISTA LYNN HALEY, JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, SPARTA, NJ, SARAN QIANA EDWARDS, JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, SPARTA, NJ, JOHN DOUGLAS RUE, JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ, Counsel for Plaintiffs J.M., individually and on behalf of E.M., a minor; E.M., individually and on behalf of C.M., a minor. JEFFREY IAN WASSERMAN, WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC, FLORHAM PARK, NJ, JOHN DOUGLAS RUE, JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ, Counsel for Plaintiff Roberta Roe. AIMEE BLENNER, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TRENTON, NJ, KERRY SORANNO, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TRENTON, NJ, LAUREN AMY JENSEN, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TRENTON, NJ, Counsel for Defendants. JENNIFER N. ROSEN VALVERDE, EDUCATION LAW CENTER, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, NEWARK, NJ, Counsel for Amici Curiae SPAN Parent Advocacy Network; Advocates for Children of New Jersey; Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Disability Rights New Jersey; Educational Law Center; NJ Special Education Practitioners; Volunteer Lawyers for Justice; Esther Canty-Barnes, Esq.; and Jennifer N. Rosen Valverde, Esq. NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Cauley in Gulino Bias Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated June 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 20-2350, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Arlene Cauley is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Ignacio in Gulino Bias Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated June 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 20-2345, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Julio Ignacio is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Martinez in Gulino Bias Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated June 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 20-2363, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Loida Martinez is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Parra in Gulino Bias Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated June 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 20-2344, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Publio Parra is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: Kettle Appeals W.D.N.Y. Order and Judgment to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Carl Kettle and David Tredo filed an appeal from the District Court's Decision and Order dated June 3, 2020, and Judgment dated June 30, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Kettle v. New York State Thruway Authority, Case No. 19-cv-504, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo). The lawsuit arises when the Plaintiffs challenge the collection of fines for cashless tolls on the Grand Island bridges. The Plaintiffs allege in their amended complaint that the Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines and, separately, failed to give them fair notice in violation of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plaintiffs also bring related state constitutional law claims, claims under New York General Business Law Section 349, and common law fraud claims. The Plaintiffs seek actual and compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and costs including attorneys' fees. The appellate case is captioned as Kettle v. New York State Thruway Authority, Case No. 20-2266, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Carl Kettle and David Tredo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Timothy Hiller, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PLLC 6000 North Bailey Avenue Amherst, NY 14226 Telephone: (716) 564-3288 E-mail: thiller@kennethhiller.com Defendants-Appellees New York State Thruway Authority, Linebarger, Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, and Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 - and - Arthur Sanders, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR SANDERS 30 South Main Street New City, NY 10956 Telephone: (845) 499-2990 - and - Kevin J. Fee, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 692-1049 E-mail: kjfee@duanemorris.com NO TAX 4 NASH: Faces TCPA Class Actions Over Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------ Mariah Timms, writing for Nashville Tennessean, reports that organizers of a grassroots push to recall Mayor John Cooper via referendum are facing a lawsuit after some say the group's automated campaign calls violated federal law. Possibly thousands of Nashville residents received automated calls on the evening of July 16 that included a prerecorded message urging voters to sign a petition to recall the mayor. The calls came from No Tax 4 Nash, which is seeking signatures for a referendum on the issue in response to a recent property tax increase in Davidson County. Metro Council passed a 34% property tax hike and broad cuts or status quo budgets for many departments last month as the city moved to respond to the economic downturn tied to the COVID-19 pandemic amid an already-strained budget. "We ask the mayor: 'Please look at all of your options, not just a property tax, but a sales tax and other funding options,'" Michelle Foreman, an organizer with No Tax 4 Nash said on July 19 at a petition drive. "And if we do need to raise property taxes, 34% is too much. "Here's where we are with Metro: We systematically waste our tax dollars. We don't spend our money wisely and since we don't spend our money wisely we come up short for schools and police and EMS." Although it's likely the city will exceed the projected fiscal 2020 sales tax revenues of $383.6 million, Metro Finance officials said it is still too early to revise overall projections. "Nashville voters, if you would like to sign the recall petition for the mayor and council members who supported the 34% property tax increase, we will be at all 11 polling locations on Friday and Saturday for early voting. If you have any questions, find us on Facebook or go to our website, notax4nash.com. Have a wonderful evening, and don't forget to vote! Paid for by No Tax 4 Nash," the message said. No Tax 4 Nash supporters gathered on July 19 outside Nissan Stadium for a petition drive, hoping to capture signatures to call for a replacement to Cooper and every Metro Council Member who voted for the increase. The drive drew a crowd of 50 or so people that stopped by throughout the event. NoTax4Nash wants to file recall petitions against 32 Council members and the mayor. Notices indicating they would be sending the petitions were filed June 19. The deadline to file the petitions with signatures was July 20, according to Metro Clerk Elizabeth Waites. But the clerk's office confirmed on the afternoon of July 20 that, while five signatures had been filed to recall Cooper on July 19, no additional petitions arrived on July 20. The Election Commission determines the number of qualified registered voters required to place each recall petition on the ballot pursuant to the Metro Charter, Waites confirmed. Approximately 15% of registered voters, or about 60,000 signatures, would be needed to get them on a referendum ballot, Administrator of Elections Jeff Roberts said on July 20. A countywide election on the proposed change would cost approximately $800,000 he said. Robocalls a bridge too far Two new class action lawsuits filed on July 19 in U.S. District Court argue that the group's use of both automated dialing and prerecorded messages flouts the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Congress found that such calls are a greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls and are therefore prohibited. The act has been reaffirmed in the courts repeatedly since then, including in a July U.S. Supreme Court ruling that blocked political campaigns from making unsolicited political robocalls to cell phones. That includes the July 16 robocalls, the court documents claim. The ruling: Supreme Court upholds law banning cellphone robocalls The suits were filed in one case on behalf of all those who received the calls, and specifically include Metro Nashville Public School Board member Rachael Anne Elrod, former Metro Council candidate, attorney Sarah Martin and local attorney Andrew Kaufman. The other names Brooks Brasfield, a Nashville resident, as the plaintiff. Both name No Tax 4 Nash as a defendant in the cases. One suit asks for damages related to the calls, possibly up to $3,000 per call. The Elrod case also names three individuals believed to be involved with the organization: * Jim Roberts, a lawyer involved in suing the city over the soccer stadium plans; Foreman, who has claimed on social media and in news reports to be "spearheading" the movement, according to court documents; * and Kimberly Edwards, named in connection with No Tax 4 Nash. "Thousands of Nashville residents had their cell phones bombarded on July 16 by a secretive group using illegal tactics to manipulate voters on the eve of an election," said attorney John Spragens, who represents the plaintiffs and the proposed class, in an emailed statement on July 20. "Fortunately, we have the tools under federal law to stop these tactics. We will find out exactly who authorized and placed these calls and hold them accountable." Roberts, reached by text on July 20, said he was not connected to the group in any official capacity. "I am part of the Petition to place the Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act on the ballot which among other things will repeal the 34% tax increase. I support but have not helped the recall efforts due to an unusually busy schedule," he said. "I know nothing about anyone using Robo-calls for any purpose." The act Roberts cites is a push for a referendum that would amend the Metro Charter to include limits on how much the city could increase property taxes without a voter approval. An increase of more than 2% without justification to taxpayers would require a referendum, according to a website for the supporters. At Nissan Stadium on July 19, Roberts lent his support to the No Tax 4 Nash movement. "We are all trying to make Nashville a better place," Roberts told the crowd. "I'm not saying abolish Metro Council, but I, we, can shut the government down tomorrow. We can collect enough signatures to abolish the government. "Do you really want this tax? Because this will get rid of it." Cooper ran on anti-tax platform While on the council and running for mayor last year, Cooper was against a property tax increase, saying he was convinced the city can fund its "real priorities with strong and realistic management approach." Many involved in the recall efforts supported Cooper in the mayoral election. He was successful in finding additional revenue early in his term, including from the city's tourism industry, but as the March tornado and the pandemic hit, he said the city must turn to a tax hike to meet the "greatest financial challenge" it has seen in a lifetime. Several key stakeholders have insisted a tax "correction" is the long-term fix that the two previous mayors eschewed as city services and infrastructure have failed to grow at the pace of Nashville's recent economic growth as debt payments strained the budget. Although the size of the hike is large, Nashville's new tax rate is still lower than comparable cities. But opponents of the hike, including Foreman and Roberts, say it's still unfair. "You are standing in the gap for people who are going to lose their homes because of this tax," Foreman said on July 19. "There are some people who can absorb it. If you can absorb it, that's great, but here are so many who cannot and we have a local government who has ignored them so long." The tax has some worried this may mean the end for small businesses already struggling in the pandemic. One attendee on July 19 said that's what he's concerned about, although he said he's not himself a small business owner. "They have to pay their leases, too," Tony Zucca said. He said he sees the tax hike as a sign of failure in leadership. "This isn't the time for a property tax increase -- in the middle of this -- 34% is too much of an increase at any time, but you sure as hell don't do it in the middle of a pandemic," he said. "The mayor talks about if he doesn't do this than he'll have to lay people off. Yeah, you and everyone else." "We've had 200,000 people visit notax4nash.com in the past two days, that tells me many of us agree on this," Foreman said on July 19. "This isn't an act of getting back. There is no malice behind it. We are being used and we have been abused and this is wrong." Metro Finance will provide an updated revenue project to Metro Council in August. Council members are set to discuss updated figures to potentially make adjustments to the budget and possibly the property tax rate ahead of tax collections going out in October. Yihyun Jeong contributed. [GN] PANGEA ORGANICS: Hecht Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pangea Organics Inc. The case is styled as Irene Hecht, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pangea Organics Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05755 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pangea Organics Inc. is a line of products that nourishes organically from crown to sole, are rich with the aromatherapeutic benefits of organic Essential Oils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Ave., Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com PARAGON FITNESS: Reiners Sues in D. Colorado Over TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paragon Fitness, LLC. The case is styled as Erica Reiners, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paragon Fitness, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02203 (D. Colo., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Paragon Fitness's goal and commitment is to train and educate individuals with the use of science of biomechanics to train their clients to perform at their optimum in every aspect of their lives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Stephen Anthony Klein, Esq. Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq. Taylor True Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0676 Fax: (303) 927-0898 Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com sklein@woodrowpeluso.com swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP: Cortez Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL CORTEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, an Ohio Corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV21661 (Filed June 4, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 20, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06430 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and unpaid minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, originally Parker Appliance Company, usually referred to as just Parker, is an American corporation specializing in motion and control technologies. The Company's corporate headquarters are in Mayfield Heights, Ohio, in Greater Cleveland.[BN] Defendant Parker-Hannifin is represented by: Douglas J. Farmer, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415 442 4810 Facsimile: 415 442 4870 E-mail: douglas.farmer@ogletree.com sarah.zenewicz@ogletree.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 4 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NASDAQ: PPC) Class Period: February 9, 2017 - June 3, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 4, 2020 Shareholders with $500,000 in losses or more are encouraged to contact the firm The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Pilgrim's Pride made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company and its executives had participated in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids from at least as early as 2012 and continuing through at least early 2017; (2) that the Company received competitive advantages, which persisted during the Class Period, from its anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) Class Period: February 27, 2020 - June 16, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that GEO Group maintained woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (2) that those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the Company's halfway houses to significant health risks; (3) that accordingly, the Company was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF) Class Period: August 17, 2015 - June 24, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Wirecard overstated its cash balances during the Class Period, falsely claiming €1.9 billion of cash in a trust account that was missing; (2) that Wirecard overstated its financial results during the Class Period, including revenue and EBITDA; (3) that Wirecard did not have adequate risk management or countermeasures; (4) that EY failed to audit Wirecard in accordance with applicable auditing principles; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about Wirecard's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) Class Period: October 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) that J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3) that several so-called independent members of the Company's board of directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] PLAYAGS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of PlayAGS, Inc. (NYSE: AGS), Cheetah Mobile, Inc. (NYSE: CMCM), Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: BKD), and Kingold Jewelry, Inc. (NASDAQ: KGJI). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. PlayAGS, Inc. (NYSE: AGS) Class Period: August 2, 2018 to August 7, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020 PlayAGS is a designer and supplier of electronic gaming machines. It operates with three business segments: (i) electronic gaming machines ("EGM"), which comprises 95% of the Company's revenue and provides 380 game titles on EGM cabinets; (ii) table products, including live felt table games, side bet offerings, progressives, signage, and other ancillary table game equipment; and (iii) interactive, which offers social casino games including online versions of the Company's game titles. On August 7, 2019, PlayAGS reported a net loss of $7.6 million for second quarter 2019, which included a $3.5 million impairment to goodwill and $1.3 million impairment to intangible assets of the Company's iGaming reporting unit, due to extended regulatory timelines which delayed revenues. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.99, or nearly 52%, to close at $8.31 per share on August 8, 2019. The complaint, filed on June 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its business in Oklahoma; (2) that, as a result, the Company's recurring revenue would be negatively impacted; (3) that PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its Interactive business segment, including delays in securing regulatory approvals and relevant licenses; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, PlayAGS was reasonably likely to record a goodwill impairment; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the PlayAGS class action go to: https://bespc.com/AGS Cheetah Mobile, Inc. (NYSE: CMCM) Class Period: March 25, 2019 to February 20, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020 On February 21, 2020, Cheetah Mobile disclosed that its Google Play Store, Google AdMob, and Google AdManager accounts were disabled on February 20, 2020 "because some of the Company's apps had not been compliant with Google policies, resulting in certain invalid traffic." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.61, or nearly 17%, to close at $2.99 per share on February 21, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not compliant with the terms of its agreements with Google; (2) that, as a result there was a reasonable likelihood that Google would terminate its advertising contracts with the Company; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to attract new users would be adversely impacted; (4) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (5) that as a result, defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. For more information on the Cheetah Mobile class action go to: https://bespc.com/CMCM Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: BKD) Class Period: August 10, 2016 to April 29, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020 As of February 1, 2020, Brookdale owned 356 communities, leased 307 communities, managed seventy-seven communities on behalf of third parties, and three communities for which it has an equity interest. The Company operates independent living, assisted living and dementia-care communities and continuing care retirement centers ("CCRCs"). Through its ancillary services programs, the Company also offers a range of outpatient therapy, home health, personalized living, and hospice services. On April 30, 2020, Nashville Business Journal reported that a proposed class-action lawsuit had been filed against Brookdale in this Judicial District, which accused the Company of, among other things, purposeful "chronically insufficient staffing" at its facilities to meet financial benchmarks since at least April 24, 2016. According to the lawsuit, Brookdale misled residents and their families when it promised to provide basic care and daily living services. The lawsuit also claims that the proposed class of plaintiffs "have not received the care and services they paid for." The lawsuit asks for damages and Brookdale to "stop the unlawful and fraudulent practices." On this news, Brookdale's stock price fell $0.56 per share, or 15.22%, over two trading sessions to close at $3.12 per share on May 1, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior living communities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's financial results were unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Brookdale class action go to: https://bespc.com/BKD Kingold Jewelry, Inc. (NASDAQ: KGJI) Class Period: March 15, 2018 to June 28, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 31, 2020 On June 29, 2020, Caixin Global published an article entitled "Cover Story: The Mystery of $2 Billion of Loans Backed by Fake Gold." The article stated, among other things, that Kingold had used gold bars that were actually gilded copper as collateral in loans and was now facing lawsuits as a result, and that Kingold had been delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange. On this news, shares of Kingold stock fell $0.27 per share, or over 24%, to close at $0.85 per share on June 29, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 30, 2020, alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kingold used fake gold as collateral to fraudulently secure loans; (2) consequently, the Company would face creditor lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. For more information on the Kingold Securities class action go to: https://bespc.com/KGJI About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Bruner Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs James Bruner, Robert Lenz, Michael Zeeck, Richard Berens, Michael Jacks, Bryan Forrest, and Ed Beattie filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated July 20, 2020, and Judgment dated July 21, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled In re: Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 0:18-cv-00939-WMW-DTS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 12, 2020, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended consolidated class-action complaint in In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-0939 (WMW/DTS) (D. Minn.). The Plaintiffs are 14 individuals, who reside in 13 states. Defendants Polaris Industries, Inc. and Polaris Sales Inc. design and manufacture off-road vehicles and their component parts, including engines. Each Plaintiff, between approximately May 8, 2014, and Feb. 9, 2018, purchased an off-road vehicle manufactured by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that a design defect, namely "excessive heat defect," has caused more than 250 fires, more than 30 severe injuries, and at least three deaths. According to them, the excessive-heat design defect is common to all of the vehicles at issue, which are equipped with an unusually high-powered "ProStar" engine. Seven of the Plaintiffs--Luna, Halvorsrod, Guthrie, Rogers, Elkin, Turgeon, and Rodriguez--allege that during the operation of their off-road vehicles, the vehicles caught fire, which resulted in a total loss of the vehicles. In April 2018, the Plaintiffs commenced multiple putative class-action lawsuits against the Defendants arising from the alleged defects and fire hazards associated with the class vehicles. United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz consolidated these cases and appointed interim counsel to act on behalf of the putative class. Magistrate Judge Schultz also ordered the Plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint, which they filed on June 15, 2018. The consolidated complaint alleged 54 counts against the Defendants. On March 6, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint. In doing so, the Court dismissed without prejudice claims asserted by seven of the Plaintiffs for lack of standing. The Court also dismissed without prejudice the breach-of warranty, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), and unjust-enrichment claims asserted by two of the Plaintiffs. And the Court dismissed with prejudice the fraudulent-omission claims asserted by two of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs amended their consolidated complaint on May 14, 2019, adding four Plaintiffs from three other states. Counts 2 through 65 of the Plaintiffs' first amended consolidated complaint allege state-law claims, including violations of state consumer-fraud laws, breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent omission, and unjust enrichment. These claims pertain to the 13 states in which the Plaintiffs purchased allegedly defective off-road vehicles. The Plaintiffs allege that the engine defects have diminished the value of their vehicles and, had they known about the engine defects, they either would not have purchased the vehicle or would have paid significantly less for the vehicle. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief, and they expressly decline to seek damages for any personal injuries resulting from the alleged engine defects. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellants James Bruner, Robert Lenz, Michael Zeeck, Richard Berens, Michael Jacks, Bryan Forrest, and Ed Beattie, are represented by: Karl L. Cambronne, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA 17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.Williams@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Roland Tellis, Esq. David Fernandes, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, #1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-9698 E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com dfernandes@baronbudd.com - and - Kirk J. Wolden, Esq. Clifford L. Carter, Esq. CARTER WOLDEN CURTIS, LLP 1111 Exposition Boulevard, Suite 602 Sacramento, CA 95815 Telephone: (916) 567-1111 E-mail: kirk@cwclawfirm.com cliff@cwclawfirm.com - and - Courtney L. Davenport, Esq. THE DAVENPORT LAW FIRM LLC 18805 Porterfield Way Germantown, MD 20874 Telephone: (703) 901-1660 E-mail: courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com Defendants-Appellees Polaris Industries, Inc. and Polaris Sales Inc. are represented by: Andrew Baker Bloomer, Esq. Paul David Collier, Esq. Richard C. Godfrey, Esq. R. Allan Pixton, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 861−2343 Facsimile: (312) 862−2000 E-mail: abloomer@kirkland.com pcollier@kirkland.com richard.godfrey@kirkland.com - and - Peter Magnuson, Esq. Wendy Jo Wildung, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766−7615 E-mail: peter.magnuson@faegredrinker.com wendy.wildung@faegredrinker.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Combs Files FDCPA Class Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, et al. The case is styled as Austin A. Combs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 8:20-cv-01725 (M.D. Fla., July 26, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, provides debt recovery and collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com PRAXAIR INC: Court Grants Provisional Class Cert. in Garcia Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as Rita Garcia v. Praxair, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-08170-JAK-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order granting: -- Provisional certification of the putative class for settlement purposes: "all persons who worked for Defendant Praxair Distributions, Inc. in California as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee at any time, excluding truck drivers, during the Class Period (from May 18, 2014 through Preliminary Approval)"; -- Preliminary approval of the settlement; -- Appointment of Kane Moon and H. Scott Levant, Moon & Yang, APC, as class counsel (“Class Counsel”); -- Appointment of Plaintiff as the class representative; -- Appointment of ILYM Group, Inc. as Settlement Administrator; -- Approval of the proposed notice and procedures set set forth in the settlement; and -- The setting of a hearing on final approval of the settlement. The Court said the motion is granted subject to a reduction of Plaintiff's incentive award to $3,000; provided, however, there will be de novo review of the request for an award of attorney's fees and costs in connection with a decision on the motion for final approval. The Defendants allegedly rounded the number of hours worked by Class Members, which resulted in the failure to compensate Class Members for all hours worked, including overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff allegedly worked for the Defendants as a laboratory technician in California from approximately 2008 to August 2017. The Plaintiff was a nonexempt, hourly employee.[CC] PRECIOUS MOMENTS: Hecht Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Precious Moments Company, Inc. The case is styled as Irene Hecht, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Precious Moments Company, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05752 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Precious Moments Company, Inc., is an American catalog order company that sells giftware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Ave., Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com PRETIUM RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Can't Amend Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ambrogio Visconti, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison achieved another victory for Pretium Resources Inc. and two executives. Pretium Resources Inc. and two executives achieved another victory when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint following dismissal of a securities class action alleging that Pretium had defrauded investors. Pretium, a gold-mining company based in Western Canada, operates the Brucejack Mine, a high-grade underground gold mine in northwestern British Columbia. Investors sued Pretium after it announced in April 2019 that it was reducing its estimate of the grade of its gold in its proven reserves substantially. On February 27, the district court dismissed the initial complaint, while allowing the plaintiffs to amend. In their original complaint, they had alleged that Pretium misled investors over a two-year period about the development of the Brucejack Mine in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and that Pretium did not disclose to the SEC that the company was excavating more waste rock than originally estimated, and thus had secretly abandoned its original mining plan. In the dismissal, the court held that the alleged misstatements were statements of opinion under the Supreme Court's decision in Omnicare, and thus not actionable, and that plaintiffs failed to plead scienter. A month later, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to address the deficiencies the court had identified. This time, they alleged that Pretium's estimates were misleading because the company had purportedly withheld for several months data on the grade of ore that its mining efforts were producing, and even then, disclosed data only on the grade of ore that it was actually processing, rather than on all of the rock being excavated. Pretium argued that the proposed amendments were futile, and the court agreed. In a 10-page order, the court found that the plaintiffs' contention that Pretium failed to disclose the grade of any ore it had mined until January 2018 was incorrect, and that in fact, Pretium had been regularly disclosing the grade of the ore it was mining since August 2017, right after the mine began commercial production. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs still didn't meet the bar set by Omnicare and still failed to plead facts supporting a strong inference of scienter. The Paul, Weiss team included litigation partners Daniel Kramer--dkramer@paulweiss.com--and William Michael--wmichael@paulweiss.com--and counsel Robert Kravitz--rkravitz@paulweiss.com Involved fees earner: Daniel Kramer - Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison; Robert Kravitz - Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison; William Michael - Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison; Law Firms: Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison; Clients: Pretium Resources; [GN] PROSHARES ULTRA: Faces Di Scala Securities Suit Over UCO Offering ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luciano Di Scala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROSHARES ULTRA BLOOMBERG CRUDE OIL, PROSHARE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, PROSHARES TRUST II, MICHAEL L. SAPIR, TIMOTHY N. COAKLEY, and TODD B. JOHNSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-05865 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2020), is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 seeking to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged material misrepresentations and omissions with regard to the registration statement filed in connection with the Company's March 2020 public offering of UCO shares. UCO is an exchange traded fund ("ETF"), which is purportedly designed to reflect the performance of crude oil as measured by the price of West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") sweet, light crude oil futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the "NYMEX"). Shares of UCO trade on the NYSEArca stock exchange under the ticker ("UCO"). The Defendants, as the creators, issuers, and operations of UCO, possessed inside knowledge about the negative consequences to UCO as a result of these converging factors. However, rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to UCO as a result of these exceptional threats, the Defendants instead conducted a massive offering of UCO shares, ultimately selling billions of dollars' worth of UCO shares to the market, the Plaintiff contends. On March 6, 2020, the Defendants announced a public offering of up to $5,123,657,025 in UCO shares via a Form S-3 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On March 5, 2020, the day before the Defendants filed this Registration Statement, UCO shares closed at approximately $11.29 each. The Registration Statement and its amendments failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the concrete harms and acute risks to the Fund posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia/Saudi oil price war, the massive influx of investor capital into the Fund, the fact that the Fund was approaching position and accountability limits, the effects of super contango, and insufficient WTI storage capacity, says the complaint. UCO quickly deteriorated, as a result of the nature and extent of the Defendants' fraud being revealed to investors and the market, according to the complaint. On April 28, 2020, one week after the reverse split, UCO shares closed at just $12.04 each, or around $0.4814 when compared to the pre- reverse split valuation. Ultimately, UCO suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. Through a series of investment overhauls, UCO was forced to transform from the passive ETF an actively-managed fund struggling to avoid a total implosion. In April and May 2020, the Defendants belatedly acknowledged the threats and adverse impacts that UCO had been experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which they had failed to disclose to investors in a timely manner. According to the complaint, the Defendants are liable for: (i) making false and misleading statements; and (ii) failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about UCO. The Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of UCO securities was a success, as it: (i) deceived the investing public regarding UCO's business, prospects, and risks; (ii) artificially inflated the prices of UCO securities; and (iii) caused Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase UCO securities at artificially inflated prices. As a result of the Defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions during the Class Period, the Plaintiff suffered billions of dollars in losses. The Plaintiff acquired and held shares of UCO at artificially inflated prices during the class period. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil is an ETF that trades on the NYSEArca under the ticker "UCO."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block Stephen J. Teti, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Fax: (617) 507-6020 Email: jeff@blockleviton.com steti@blockleviton.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Rice Sues Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca A. Rice, Shalamar Curtis and Raquel Aziz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-09540 (D.N.J., July 28, 2020), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 accusing the Defendants of breaching their duties as fiduciaries of Quest's employee benefits plan. To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope. These twin fiduciary duties are "the highest known to the law." The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. In many instances, the Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and failed to consider certain collective trusts available during the Class Period as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower fees and materially similar investment objectives, according to the complaint. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the ERISA. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options offered by the Plan. Quest is the Plan sponsor and a provider of diagnostic information services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com - and - Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (717) 233-4101 Fax (717) 233-4103 Email: donr@capozziadler.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Deutsch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services L.P. The case is styled as Naftela Y. Deutsch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Case No. 1:20-cv-03371 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital Services, LP, provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ROBINS FINANCIAL: Adds Arbitration Provision in Member Agreements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Wise, writing for WGXA, reports that according to a letter sent to customers of Robins Financial Credit Union, RFCU is adding a new arbitration and class action provision effective July 22. This provision would prevent members and the union from resolving matters in court, instead opting for binding arbitration. According to the letter, "arbitration replaces the right to go to court, including the right to a jury trial and the right to participate in a class action or similar proceeding." Members would instead settle a dispute with the credit union through a "neutral party, an arbitrator" instead of having a judge or jury and "arbitration procedures may be more limited than rules applicable in court." Disputes that would be handled with an arbitrator could be anything from claims or disputes relating to a member's account, transactions involving a member's account, safe deposit box or any other related service with the credit union. The provision all prohibits "class action, class-wide arbitration, private attorney general action, or other proceeding where someone acts in a representative capacity." To involve more than one person in arbitration, it must be agreed by both the member and credit union to do so. Otherwise, claims or disputes of two or more cannot be joined together unless the claims are related by the account or transaction. The letter has details of the arbitration proceedings. Included in the letter is the ability for a member to opt out of the provision by July 31, which one WGXA viewer tells us is an important opportunity for members of RFCU. Verlon Gilbreath, a member of the credit union for nearly five decades, brought this new provision to WGXA's attention out of concern that fellow members might have looked over their letter. "The credit union sent out letters, as far as I know, to all their members," he says. "However, it was a three page letter and it may well be taken by some folks this annual thing that some companies send out about 'here's how we're going to use your information.' I have talked to with a few folks who have said they didn't even bother to read it or just threw it away." He says his concern is simple and it is that binding arbitration takes away a constitutional right to have a judge and jury. "I view the constitution as meaning what it says and the 7th amendment to the constitution says in any monetary conflict involving 20 dollars or more, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved," he says. However, Gilbreath tells WGXA by giving members the opportunity to opt out, the credit union is doing something that most companies who have binding arbitration would not. "I give credit where credit is due," he says. "I appreciate the credit union giving us that opportunity." To opt out of the new provision, a letter must be sent to the credit union notifying them of your rejection of the Resolution of Disputes by Arbitration provision, with your name and account number. That letter must be sent to PO Box 6849 Warner Robins Ga. 31095. If a member does not send a letter, the new provision will automatically apply to their account. WGXA reached out to RFCU for an interview to explain the new provision, but the credit union was unable to schedule a time. However, Hillary Bobbit, spokesperson for RFCU, provided WGXA with this statement. "We are adding an arbitration and class action waiver provision in an effort to protect our members and their assets. This provision will still allow all of our members to present their disputes and seek any remedies they are entitled to under the law. If any member wishes to participate in a class action, they will still be able to do so if they effectively and timely opt out of the arbitration provision," says Bobbit. [GN] RYDER SYSTEM: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors that they have only until July 20, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R), if they purchased the Company's shares between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Ryder investors should visit us at https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-ryder-system-inc-securities-litigation or call toll-free (844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to discuss your legal options. About the Lawsuit Ryder and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On February 13, 2020, the Company disclosed that, due to significant reductions to the residual value of its trucking fleet, it had taken a total of $357 million in depreciation expense for 2019 and a loss of approximately $58 million on used vehicle sales, and that it expected to incur another $275 million in depreciation expense on its fleet and an additional $20 million estimated loss on used vehicle sales in 2020. On this news, the price of Ryder's shares plummeted 20% over two trading days. The case is Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Ryder System, Inc., et al, 20-cv-22109. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Leo University Incorporated. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Saint Leo University Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-05839 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Saint Leo University is a private Roman Catholic liberal arts university in St. Leo, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com SANTEE COOPER: $520MM Class Settlement Obtains Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Shelly Sigo, writing for The Bond Buyer, reports that a South Carolina circuit judge has closed the book on a lengthy class-action lawsuit against the utility owned by the state and an investor-owned power company over their failed nuclear reactor project. On July 21, Acting Circuit Court Judge Jean Hoefer Toal issued the final judgment in the class-action case led by Jessica S. Cook, ending two-and-a-half years of litigation for South Carolina-owned Santee Cooper, its former directors, and electric cooperatives, as well as the former SCANA Corp.-owned South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. In a 39-page order, Toal granted the motion to approve the settlement on behalf of more than 1.65 million ratepayers and found that "its planned implementation is in all respects fair, adequate, and in the best interests of the class. "The parties agreed to a settlement amount of $520 million, representing a 96% recovery of costs incurred by the customer class from full notice to proceed [with the twin nuclear project] through project abandonment," Toal wrote. "In addition, class counsel secured a four-year freeze on rate increases by Santee Cooper, the value of which is estimated to total roughly $510 million of additional benefit to the customer class." Under settlement terms, Richmond, Virginia-based Dominion Energy, which now owns SCE&G, will pay $320 million, while Santee Cooper will pay $200 million in cash over three years, in addition to freezing rates over the next four years. Cook's lead attorney, Daniel Speights, founding partner at Speights & Solomons LLC, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about the settlement. Mollie Gore, spokeswoman for Santee Cooper, said utility officials appreciated Toal's "swift decision," which was issued in writing on July 21, after a hearing on July 20. "This settlement is good for our customers, and Santee Cooper is taking the steps necessary to move forward," Gore said in a statement. "This includes a meeting of our board on July 31 to authorize management to comply with all components of the settlement." Dominion Energy didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The class-action suit is just one of several lawsuits pending over the decision by Santee Cooper and SCE&G to suspend construction on the two nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in July 2017, after its board found that the cost to complete them was uneconomical. Santee Cooper, formally the South Carolina Public Service Authority, owned 45% of the project. Its analysis in 2017 showed that completing the units would cost customers another 41% in rate increases by 2030, and another nearly $7 billion on top of the $4.5 billion that had already been spent on the project. The utility issued about $4.2 billion of bonds to finance its obligations. The decision to stop work followed a comprehensive project review spurred by the March 29, 2017 bankruptcy filing of the engineering, procurement and construction contractor, Westinghouse Electric Co. In addition to approving the settlement on July 21, Toal also granted the request by attorneys for the plaintiffs for 15% of the net present value of the $520 million common benefit fund as their fees, and another $1.54 million for the costs their firms incurred. Toal said 78 class members opted out of the settlement, while three objections were filed, which she found to be without merit. The judge said the plaintiffs developed an argument that the defendants should have ceased construction on the reactors in April 2012, instead of signing off on the full notice to proceed with the project. During discovery, plaintiff's attorney's estimated customers of both utilities were assessed $540 million in financing costs from the notice to proceed until construction ended. "The record demonstrates the settlement was the product of good faith negotiations," Toal wrote. "The resulting settlement represents a significant return of funds expended during the interim of the project to the customer class, as well as additional rate relief to benefit the class over the next four years. "Given this court's familiarity with the case and the nuanced procedural posture and substantive law, this court attests the settlement is not the product of collusion." the judge said. "Rather, the settlement is a hard-fought resolution among competent adversaries dedicated to client advocacy." In finding the settlement to be fair, Toal also said there is no evidence that the settlement was "the product of anything other than arms' length negotiations." While the Cook litigation has ended, a federal judge ordered discovery to begin in another proposed class-action lawsuit by an investor in Santee Cooper's mini-bond program, filed in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina's Charleston Division on April 15, 2019. Murray C. Turka, the lead plaintiff, filed the federal complaint against Santee Cooper and Lonnie Carter, the authority's former chief executive officer, alleging violations of federal securities law anti-fraud provisions for failing to disclose pertinent information to investors about the nuclear project when the mini-bonds were sold. During the period questioned in the lawsuit, Santee Cooper issued mini-bonds directly to residents of the state in 2014, 2015 and 2016 totaling $117.8 million. Turka certified that he purchased $15,000 of the bonds in 2014. Gore, Santee Cooper's spokeswoman, said on July 21 that all of the utility's mini-bonds were called Jan. 1, and the program has been closed. On June 25, Federal Judge Richard Mark Gergel ordered the parties to begin discovery in preparation for a jury selection and trial on or after July 1, 2021, according to the latest scheduling order in the Turka litigation. Both sides are due to file lists of expert witnesses by December of this year. Final motions pertaining to the case and pretrial briefs are due five days prior to jury selection. Santee Cooper and Carter had filed a motion to dismiss the case, but Gergel rejected those requests on Feb. 25. The judge found that Turka had standing to bring the case for himself and a class of investors like him, and that Turka "sufficiently alleged misstatements or material omissions" in bond documents and other communications about the nuclear project. Official statements for the mini-bonds, however, represented that the project was "subject to generic financial risk factors," Gergel said. "Out of these allegations, the complaint generates a strong inference that Santee Cooper and Carter acted recklessly in that the danger of misleading mini-bond purchasers was so obvious that they must have been aware of it. "Considering the totality of the circumstances alleged and giving 'the inferential weight warranted by context and common sense,' the court finds that plaintiff plausibly pled at least reckless scienter [or knowledge of wrongdoing] as to Santee Cooper and Carter," the judge said. Gergel also found that Turka "plausibly pled" that he and the putative class suffered an economic loss as a result of the alleged misstatements and material omissions in official statements, and that they suffered damages by receiving artificially deflated interest payments on the mini-bonds. The cost of Summer Nuclear Units 2 and 3 was originally estimated to be approximately $9.8 billion. Based on its 45% ownership interest, Santee Cooper's original cost to construct the two reactors was estimated to be approximately $4.4 billion. As of Dec. 31, 2019, bonds issued for the ill-fated project were outstanding in the amount of $3.6 billion, according to Santee Cooper's 2019 comprehensive annual financial report. [GN] SECURITY BENEFIT: Faces Clinton RICO Suit Over Sale of Annuities ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELLA CLINTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Kansas corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-04038-EFM-KGG (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2020), alleges that Security Benefit wrongfully induced the Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated individuals to purchase annuities through materially false and misleading representations and half-truths in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Instead of utilizing a reputable index, such as Standard & Poor 500, Security Benefit's fraudulent racketeering scheme included the development and marketing of a series of misleading and deceptive equity-indexed deferred annuity (EIA) purporting to provide above-market returns through purported "uncapped" 100% participation in the gains in certain "proprietary" indices artificially engineered specifically for use in these new EIAs, says the complaint. An EIA is a type of fixed annuity that is distinguished by the interest yield return being partially based on an equities index, typically the S&P 500. The Plaintiff contends that Security Benefit's marketing of "uncapped" and "100% participation" in the returns on these proprietary indices was false and misleading without a clear statement that they were in fact designed to have much lower returns than the stock indices traditionally used in EIAs. This fraudulent scheme could only be accomplished with the assistance of third parties such as Advisors Excel, she adds. This scheme to defraud proximately injured the Plaintiff and Class members because it prevented them from making an informed decision regarding whether to purchase the Annuities, according to the complaint. Had they known the truth regarding Security Benefit's grossly misleading performance illustrations regarding the Synthetic Indices, or had they been adequately informed about the creation, operation, and management of the Annuities and the Synthetic Indices, they would not have purchased the Annuities. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other appropriate forms of equitable or injunctive relief to halt and remedy Security Benefit's scheme to use the Synthetic Indices to induce the sale of the Annuities to United States residents. Security Benefit is a life insurance company organized under Kansas law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Moskowitz, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Sullivan Sues Over Refusal to Cover Losses --------------------------------------------------------------- Sullivan County Fabrication, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and SELECTIVE WAY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 7:20-cv-05750-PMH (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for the breach of their contractual obligations under common general commercial property insurance policies to indemnify the Plaintiff for business losses and extra expenses. The policies should have also indemnified the Plaintiff for related losses resulting from actions taken by civil authorities to stop the human to human and surface to human spread of the coronavirus. On March 16, 2020, the White House, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the "CDC"), and members of the US national Coronavirus Task Force issued guidance to the American public, titled "30 Days to Slow the Spread" for stopping the spread of COVID-19 in the United States. Most businesses insure against unforeseen catastrophic events like the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent government-mandated closures through general commercial property insurance policies. These contractual policies promise to indemnify policyholders for actual business losses incurred when business operations are involuntarily suspended, interrupted, or curtailed. This coverage is commonly known as business interruption or "loss of income" coverage and is standard in most general commercial property insurance policies. The Plaintiff purchased Commercial General Liability and Property Coverage from the Defendants on December 24, 2019, for a period effective December 20, 2019, through December 20, 2020. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have reneged on their obligations and refused to insure business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by Plaintiff caused by the government-mandated COVID-19 pandemic closure. Consistent with New York insurance claims handling standards, the Plaintiff says it had the right to rely on the Defendants to handle its insurance claim for business interruption losses in a manner consistent with the standards of good faith and fair dealing. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, the Defendants denied the claim in its entirety. The action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil authorities to stop its spread triggers coverage, has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that curtail policyholders' business operations, and finds that the Defendants are liable for the corresponding business losses suffered by policyholders. Plaintiff Sullivan County Fabrication, Inc., is incorporated in Sullivan County, New York, and operates steel shelving manufacturing and refabricating facilities in New York State, including its insured premises located in Woodridge, New York. Selective Insurance Company of America is an insurance company headquartered in Branchville, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Sami Ahmad, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone 914-298-3290 Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com sahmad@fbfglaw.com - and - Allan Kanner, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C. 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone (504) 524-5777 Email: A.Kanner@kanner-law.com - and - Jeff Korek, Esq. GERSOWITZ LIBO & KOREK PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10006 Phone (212) 385-4410 Email: jkorek@lawyertime.com SHREVEPORT, LA: $6MM Settlement in Sewer Bill Suit Gets Partial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ KTBS reports that a Caddo District Court judge has granted partial approval of an almost $6 million settlement for overcharges of Shreveport water and sewer bills. Caddo Parish District Court Judge Michael Pitman issued a ruling granting preliminary approval of the partial settlement. The $5.9 million settlement comes after three years of litigation and more recent negotiations between counsel representing the lawsuit class and attorneys for the city of Shreveport. The settlement partially resolves the issue of "rounding" of residential customers' average winter consumption ("AWC") on their sewer bills, which is one of a few issues present in the class action lawsuit. The hearing date to finalize the settlement is set for Nov. 12 at the First Judicial District Court in Shreveport. There, class members will have the opportunity to object or otherwise appear to be heard about the settlement. Class members will be receiving in the mail a notice of the partial settlement, along with additional information about the partial settlement. A website and toll-free phone number will also be included on that notice to provide class members and the public with additional information. The notices will be mailed out in the next 30 days. The website for additional class information is www.ShreveportDOWASPartialRoundingSettlement.com, and is scheduled to launch in early August. The question of damages on the other parts of the residential class action--since the District Court already found in favor of the class on liability--is set for trial Oct. 20. Jerald R. Harper and Anne E. Wilkes of the Harper Law Firm are representing the class and have been engaged in settlement negotiations and representation of the class members. [GN] SIMPLY SWEEPS: Faces Trim TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lucine Trim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIMPLY SWEEPS, LP; SPARK REVENUE, LLC; CREDIREADY, LLC; INTERNET THINGS, LP; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-06637 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2020), seeks damages and remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to send text messages to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit the purchase of CrediReady's services, according to the complaint. The Defendants never received the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive unsolicited text messages or calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on her cellular telephone pursuant to the TCPA. As a result of the violations of the TCPA, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injury to the Plaintiff's feelings, personal humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress, and Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff's actual damages, statutory damages, and costs and attorney's fees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of North Hollywood, California. Simply Sweeps is a business that participates in the market of lead generation and data management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com SOUTHERN NEW: Young Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern New Hampshire University. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Southern New Hampshire University, Case No. 1:20-cv-05782 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Southern New Hampshire University is a private university located between Manchester and Hooksett, New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com STARS GROUP: CDN30MM Securities Class Action Settlement Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Faguy & Co. and Morganti & Co. P.C. disclosed that on July 8, 2020 the Honourable Justice Suzanne Courchesne of the Superior Court of Quebec approved the CDN$30 million settlement of the securities class action lawsuit against The Stars Group Inc. ("TSGI") and others in Superior Court of Quebec File No. 500-06-000785-168. The class action was brought on behalf of all persons and entities, excluding certain persons associated with the Defendants, who acquired securities of TSGI outside of the USA between March 31, 2014 and March 22, 2016 (the "Class Period") and held all or some of those acquired TSGI securities until after March 22, 2016. You are a class member if you meet this description ("Class Member"). The class action asserted that TSGI made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in TSGI's public filings and statements regarding its business practices. The parties have reached the settlement without admission of liability on the part of the Defendants. In fact, the Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and allegations of wrongdoing made by the Plaintiff in the class action. Each Class Member must submit a completed Claim Form on or before November 18, 2020 in order to participate in the settlement. The Claim Form can be accessed at http://www.amayasecuritiessettlementcanada.comor obtained by calling the Administrator at, 1 (866) 329-7153, or by email at claims@trilogyclassactions.ca. Class Members are required to complete the Claim Form and upload the supporting documentation in the online claims administration portal at https://www.amayasecuritiessettlementcanada.com/portal. You may submit a paper Claim Form only if you do not have internet access. The paper Claim Form may be sent by mail or courier to: Administrator, The Stars Group Inc./Amaya Securities Class Action Trilogy Class Action Services 117 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1000, Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON, Canada Tel: 1 (866) 329-7153 Email: claims@trilogyclassactions.ca If you do not submit a completed claim form by November 18, 2020, you will not receive any part of the net Settlement Amount. Details of the process for Class Members to make a claim, of the proposed settlement and the judgments of the Superior Court of Québec and other information in both English and French are available on class counsel's website at http://faguyco.com/portfolio/amaya-class-action/as well as on the Registre des actions collectives. Contacts For any inquiries, please contact class counsel representing Class Members: Faguy & Co. Barristers and Solicitors Inc. 329 de la Commune West, Suite 200 Montreal, Québec H2Y 2E1 Tel: 514.285.8100 ext. 225 Fax: 514.285.8050 classactions@faguyco.com Morganti & Co., P.C. 21 St. Clair Avenue, Suite 1102 Toronto, Ontario M4T 1L9 Tel.: 647.344.1900 ekarp@morgantico.com [GN] STEMILT AG: H-2A Farm Workers File Employment Rights Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Goggins, writing for iFIBERONE, reports that a large group of H-2A farm workers who harvested apples for Wenatchee-based Stemilt Ag Services have filed an employment rights class action lawsuit against the orchardist. The H-2A workers allege that Stemilt violated the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination through threats of intimidation that caused H-2A workers to believe that they would suffer serious consequences if they didn't meet Stemilt's labor demands. "This case seeks to protect the rights of H-2A workers, some of our most vulnerable workers, who often come from very poor areas in Mexico and are being taken advantage of by one of the largest agricultural employers in the United States," said Columbia Legal Services attorney Diana Garcia. "Farm workers perform some of the most arduous jobs, often in extreme weather, to help put fresh food on our tables. They deserve dignity and respect, not threats and retaliation for asserting their rights." H-2A migrant workers are not offered the same federal protections as other farm workers. Columbia Legal Services says migrant workers are exposed to retaliation because labor recruiters in foreign countries "routinely refuse to rehire H-2A workers who try to improve working conditions for themselves and others." Columbia Legal Services and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed the lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Gilberto Gómez García, Jonathan Gómez Rivera, and all other similarly situated H-2A workers who worked for Stemilt in 2017. According to Columbia Legal Services, Stemilt's H-2A contract didn't contain any production standards. Garcia and Rivera were allegedly told that they had to pick a certain number of bins of apples per day. If they didn't meet this production standard, they would allegedly receive written warnings. "They were routinely threatened that if they received three written warnings, they would be fired, returned to Mexico without expenses paid, and banned from future employment. The Gómezes claim their working conditions were intolerable due to Stemilt's threats to fire them if they did not meet the unlawful production standards and due to Stemilt's threats that they would not be rehired in the future by Stemilt or other U.S. companies," Columbia Legal Services stated. The workers also allege that when H-2A workers were transported to other Stemilt orchards to work, they were not compensated for the time that they spent waiting before the work day began and after the work day ended. Stemilt's managers routinely required the workers to wait approximately half an hour or more before they were permitted to start work and while the manager completed paperwork at the end of the day. [GN] SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Minichelli Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Syracuse University. The case is styled as Julian Minichelli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Syracuse University, Case No. 5:20-cv-00839-MAD-ATB (W.D.N.C., July 24, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Syracuse University is a private research university in Syracuse, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Cherundolo, Esq. CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC AXA Tower One, 17th Floor 100 Madison Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Phone: (315) 449-9500 Fax: (315) 449-9804 Email: jcherundolo@cherundololawfirm.com TAHE OUTDOORS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tahe Outdoors North America, Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tahe Outdoors North America, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05821 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tahe Outdoors is a watersports company in Europe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal TARGET CORP: Mills Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CINNAMON MILLS, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. RIC2001622 (Filed June 10, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 22, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-01460 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to pay vested vacation; failure to timely pay final wages; and unfair and unlawful competition in violation of the California Labor Code. Target Corporation is an American retail corporation. Target is the 8th-largest retailer in the United States, and is a component of the S&P 500 Index.[BN] The Defendant Target Corporation is represented by: Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. Brandon E. Hughes, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com brandonhughes@paulhastings.com TEACHING COMPANY: Faces Mejico Suit Over Free Trial Subscription ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTNEY MEJICO, an individual v. THE TEACHING COMPANY SALES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV27295 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging violations of California's Automatic Renewal Law and the California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made and continues to make offers of "free" services and products that violate California laws by: -- failing to include a "clear and conspicuous" explanation of the price that will be charged after the trial ends; -- charging consumer credit or debit cards without first obtaining "affirmative consent" to automatically renewing charges"; -- failing to provide an acknowledgment that includes the cancellation policy, including the ability to cancel prior to payment, in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer; and -- failing to include an exclusively online method of termination. The Plaintiff is a blind California consumer. Earlier this year, she accepted a "free" trial subscription of The Great Courses Plus online learning service and related products from the Defendant. The Teaching Company, LLC, doing business as The Great Courses, provides courses on digital versatile disc, audio compact disc, and other formats. The Company offers audio and video courses in various subjects and fields, such as science, mathematics, history, fine arts, religion, philosophy, literature, and economics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Rocha Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA PLAZAS ROCHA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TELEMUNDO NETWORK GROUP LLC, Case No. 2020-008086-CA-01 (Filed April 8, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 22, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-23020-BB to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims for alleged discrimination based on sex, race, and national origin, as well as, retaliation pursuant to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Florida Statutes. The complaint also asserts a claim pursuant to the Equal Pay Act. Telemundo Network operates a Spanish-language television network. Telemundo Network offers novelas, sports and news, children's programming, movies, reality, entertainment and music programs, and original sitcoms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq. Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. Daniel J. Bujan, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305 416 5000 Facsimile: 305 416 5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com ns@rgpattorneys.com dbujan@rgattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher P. Hammon, Esq. Gregory R. Hawran, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 9130 South Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1625 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: 305 374 0506 Facsimile: 305 374 0456 E-mail: chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com gregory.hawran@ogletreedeakins.com TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Fights Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that numerous higher-education institutions in Pennsylvania and across the country are facing class action suits seeking tuition refunds after classes went online as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and now Temple University is the first school in the state to begin fighting back. Plaintiffs are raising breach-of-contract and unjust enrichment claims over the campus closures, but, in its motion to dismiss, Temple argued that there was never a contract guaranteeing in-person-only education. [GN] TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Harris Files Consumer Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Topco Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Jazmine Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Topco Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04355 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Topco Associates LLC is the largest American retail food GPO and the third largest private company in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com TUFIN SOFTWARE: The Schall Law Reminds of Sept. 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. ("Tufin" or "the Company") (NYSE: TUFN) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Tufin's April 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO") and its December 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO") are encouraged to contact the firm before September 18, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Tufin misled investors on key topics including its North American business, growth metrics, and customer relationships. In fact, the Company's business was deteriorating. The Company's representations were overly optimistic and adverse conditions impacting its financial prospects were known and concealed by the Company and its executives. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Tufin, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Francis Mailman Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Uber Technologies, Inc., was sued in July 2020 in New Jersey federal court in a class action lawsuit alleging the company dishonored its promises to drivers when it reclassified vehicles it previously deemed eligible to drive for the more-selective and higher-grossing Uber BlackSUV level of service. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff purchased a $71,000 2017 Chevrolet Tahoe in December 2018. Before he did, he confirmed that the vehicle was eligible to drive for Uber BlackSUV, and that it would be eligible to do so for seven years (until 2024). However, according to the lawsuit, after driving for Uber BlackSUV for barely six months, the plaintiff received notice from Uber on August 5, 2019, that in less than 30 days, on September 2, his Tahoe, along with a number of other vehicles, would no longer be eligible to drive for Uber BlackSUV. On September 2, 2019, Uber revoked his vehicle's eligibility. Since then, the plaintiff has driven for lower-grossing Uber service levels resulting in his earnings from Uber decreasing by more than $200 per month. "Uber blindsided many of its Uber BlackSUV drivers in 2019 when it revoked the eligibility of certain vehicles to drive for that service level despite stating previously that those vehicles were eligible for use as Uber BlackSUVs," said John Soumilas, a partner at Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., and one of the attorneys for the plaintiff. "A number of Uber BlackSUV drivers still have years of payments remaining on their luxury vehicles they purchased with the expectation that they could drive them for Uber BlackSUV for several more years. Unfortunately, without the higher fares provided by Uber BlackSUV, many of those drivers are going to struggle to make payments on those cars and pay for other household expenses." The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class of Uber drivers in New Jersey who, beginning in 2014, drove a vehicle for Uber BlackSUV but whose ability to do so later ended when Uber revoked the eligibility of their vehicles for that service level. The lawsuit alleges that Uber breached its contracts with Uber BlackSUV drivers that allowed them to use their now-prohibited vehicles for that service level. The lawsuit also alleges that the drivers relied, to their detriment, on Uber's representations that certain vehicles could be used for Uber BlackSUV for a longer period of time than Uber ultimately permitted. Finally, the lawsuit alleges that Uber acted in bad faith or with a malicious motive to deny drivers the benefits of the agreements that allowed them to drive their vehicles for Uber BlackSUV longer than Uber allowed them to. Uber drivers in New Jersey who drove a vehicle for Uber BlackSUV but are no longer able to do so because Uber revoked their vehicle's eligibility can obtain additional information about the class action or show their interest in joining the lawsuit by clicking here. The lawsuit, captioned Siperavage v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 20-cv-09169, was filed on July 21, 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. About Francis Mailman Soumilas Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. is one of the nation's premier consumer rights firms. The firm has obtained top verdicts and settlements, ground-breaking legal rulings and class certification in countless important consumer rights cases. The firm represents consumers subjected to unfair credit reporting, debt collection, robo-calling, and employment and tenant screening, as well as general consumer fraud and deceptive practice matters. For more info, call 877-735-8600 or visit: http://www.consumerlawfirm.com. [GN] UNILEVER: Motion to Dismiss False Advertising Class Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that numerous class action lawsuits have been filed, mostly by a single firm, involving products that are claimed to contain deceptive and misleading information on their labels regarding vanilla. The law firm has reported, for example, on a lawsuit filed June 26, 2020 against Hain Celestial Group involving soymilk, which specifically alleges that the challenged product contains vanillin (an artificial vanilla flavor), and is distinguished from a case dismissed in June against Kellogg for granola bars, where the claims were deemed too speculative because the Plaintiffs relied solely on the declaration of "natural flavors" in the ingredient list, as opposed to a listing for "vanilla" or "vanilla extract," to conclude that a non-vanilla flavor was present. Most recently, on July 16, 2020, in a case against Unilever, a California federal judge rejected procedural arguments in a motion to dismiss claims that Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream is falsely marketed and labeled as containing vanilla flavor derived exclusively from the vanilla plant and is misleading consumers by failing to state that it also contains artificially flavored vanilla, as revealed in laboratory testing of the ice cream. In a similar case involving Wegman's vanilla ice cream, which was dismissed, the Plaintiffs did not allege the product was labeled as being exclusively flavored with vanilla bean or vanilla extract. The New York federal judge in the Wegman's case determined that data relied on by the plaintiff may not have been sufficiently sensitive to determine that vanilla was not present in the ice cream. Additionally, perhaps misconstruing FDA's labeling regulations, the judge questioned whether the labels were deceptive because they did not state that vanilla bean or vanilla extract were used, although Plaintiffs had argued that to be truthful the product should have been labeled as "flavored" vanilla ice cream. [GN] UNITED COLLECTION: Gordon Files FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shifra Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:20-cv-05759-CS (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. United Collection Bureau Inc. provides debt collection and accounts receivable management services to creditors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com UNITED COLLECTION: Weber Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Weber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-09408 (D.N.J., July 24, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. United Collection Bureau Inc. provides debt collection and accounts receivable management services to creditors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com UNITED JEWISH: Appellate Court Upholds Arbitration Denial in Hichez ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, upheld a trial court order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned EPIFANIA HICHEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. UNITED JEWISH COUNCIL OF THE EAST SIDE, HOME ATTENDANT SERVICE CORP., Defendant-Appellant. 10871N, 653250/17. (N.Y. Div. App.). Plaintiffs asserted wage-hour and wage-parity claims under the Labor Law, and breaches of contracts requiring defendant's compliance with the Home Care Worker Wage Parity Act and the New York City Fair Wages for Workers Act (Administrative Code of City of NY Section 6-109). Defendant moved to compel arbitration under the terms of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between defendant and 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (Union). The Appellate Court notes that Plaintiffs are not prohibited from bringing the action by the arbitration provision in article XXVI of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between defendant and the Union, which "limits mandatory arbitration to disputes between an employee and employer concerning the interpretation or application of [a specific] term of the CBA." Here, plaintiffs assert claims outside of the CBA. Nor are plaintiffs bound by the new article hereby created by the MOA that was intended to govern wage-hour and wage-parity disputes exclusively, the Appellate Court holds. Although the MOA requires arbitration of the statutory claims asserted in the complaint, plaintiffs were no longer defendant's employees when it was executed, they were not parties to that agreement, and there is no evidence that the Union was authorized to proceed on their behalf. As former employees or retirees whose work has ceased with no expectation of return, plaintiffs were not members of the bargaining unit represented by the Union, the Appellate Court finds. Contrary to defendant's contention, the new article in the MOA does not clearly and unmistakably delegate the determination of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the Appellate Court opines. It neither incorporates the arbitration procedures of CBA article XXVI nor adopts the procedural rules of the American Arbitration Association. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/sqyhlvz from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES OIL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming August 18, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO" or the "Company") (NYSE: USO) securities between March 19, 2020 to April 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your USO investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/united-states-oil-fund-lp/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On May 29, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had opened probes into the United States Oil Fund, LP. According to the article, the probes concerned issues including "whether shareholders were adequately informed that the ETF's value wouldn't necessarily move in tandem with the spot price of oil and the fund's recent decision to purchase crude contracts that expire further out in the future." The Company's stock has lost 75% of its value in the two months ended April 30. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants stated that USO would achieve its investment objective by investing substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract. However, unbeknownst to investors, USO's purported investment objective and strategy was unfeasible due to market conditions in early 2020, including a "super contango" in which the futures prices for oil substantially exceeded the spot price because storage facilities in Cushing, Oklahoma approached capacity. Instead of revealing the known impacts and risks, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares in March 2020. If you purchased or otherwise acquired USO securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 18, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] UNITED STATES: Cacciapalle Appeals Order & Judgment to Fed. Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiff Joseph Cacciapalle filed an appeal from a court Opinion and Order, and Judgment dated June 26, 2020, in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH CACCIAPALLE, et al. v. THE UNITED STATES, Case No. 1:13-cv-00466-MMS, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Plaintiffs in this case challenge the actions of the United States during the conservatorships of the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie"). Specifically, the Plaintiffs take issue with the conservator for Fannie and Freddie (collectively, the "Enterprises") amending a funding agreement between the Enterprises and the United States Department of the Treasury. Based on the revisions to that agreement, the Plaintiffs seek the return of money illegally exacted; damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty; and compensation for two types of takings claims pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims, the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims, and the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Plaintiffs first assert that the Net Worth Sweep constitutes a Fifth Amendment taking of their economic interests in their stock. Next, the Plaintiffs assert a different takings claim based on any judicial interpretation of Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ("HERA") that precludes them from recovering just compensation for their property interest in certain causes of action, including derivative claims on behalf of the Enterprises. Plaintiffs further assert that the Net Worth Sweep constitutes an illegal exaction of their economic interests in their stock because (1) the Federal Housing Finance Agency as the conservator (FHFA-C) was operating against its statutory mandate to preserve the Enterprises' assets; (2) the FHFA-C repudiated the Enterprises' contractual obligations to their shareholders outside of the permissible statutory time-frame; and (3) Treasury entered into the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement ("PSPA") Amendments after the statutory time frame for entering into such contracts had expired. The Plaintiffs also plead two breach-of-contract claims. In the first, they allege that their stock certificates bind the Enterprises in contract, and that these contracts were breached by the FHFA-C when it entered into the PSPA Amendments, depriving the Plaintiffs of the benefits of those contracts. In the second breach-of-contract claim, founded again on the Plaintiffs' stock certificates, they allege that the FHFA-C breached the Enterprises' implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing vis-a-vis plaintiffs. Lastly, the Plaintiffs allege that the FHFAC, as a conservator pursuant to HERA, owes a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs. The breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim is premised on the Net Worth Sweep being unfair; constituting waste, self-dealing, gross overreach, and gross abuse of discretion; and failing to further a valid business purpose or reflect a good faith business judgment. The appellate case is captioned as JOSEPH CACCIAPALLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, MELVIN BAREISS, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, BRYNDON FISHER, BRUCE REID, ERICK SHIPMON, AMERICAN EUROPEAN INSURANCE COMPANY, FRANCIS J. DENNIS, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-2037, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.{BN} Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH CACCIAPALLE is represented by: Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq. Todd Thomas, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com tthomas@bsfllp.com - and - Eric L. Zagar, Esq. Lee D. Rudy, Esq. Grant D. Goodhart III, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com lrudy@ktmc.com ggoodhart@ktmc.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Charles J. Piven, Esq. BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, MD 21153 Telephone: (410) 332-0030 Facsimile: (410) 685-1300 E-mail: piven@browerpiven.com - and - Michael J. Barry, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Cross-Plan Offsetting ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Payne, writing for benefits PRO, reports that UnitedHealth is once again in hot water over its practice of pushing the cost of payment disputes onto its employer-group clients. A new class-action lawsuit accuses the health insurance giant of passing on more than $1 billion in costs to employers each year through a practice called "cross-plan offsetting." The company faced a similar lawsuit last year, when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the practice was in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The new suit, Scott v. UnitedHealth Group, was brought by an employee at AT&T as well as an employee at CenturyLink, arguing on behalf of thousands of their fellow employees. "By engaging in cross-plan offsetting, United treats the thousands of Plans it administers as one extremely large piggybank, moving more than $1.2 billion among its Plans each year to suit its own interests," the complaint states. "Each cross-plan offset violates ERISA, and in most cases, the money ends up in United's own pocket." "It's inexcusable that the UnitedHealth Group would shave money off my hard-earned paycheck to line its own pockets," said plantiff Royce Klein. " When I'd see deductions in my paycheck, I trusted them to have my best interest in mind, and instead, they took advantage of my co-workers and me. My hope is by filing this lawsuit that UnitedHealth Group will be exposed for taking advantage of hard-working Americans in a similar situation and be forced to put an end to this diabolical scheme." Through the practice of cross-plan offsets, UnitedHealth allegedly has been overcharging self-funded health plans and using the excess funds to cover the costs of other plans' disputed payments. "That kind of mixing of plan assets is incompatible with United's fiduciary duties to each of its separate plans and runs afoul of ERISA at every turn," Karen Handorf, a partner at law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, said in an email. "We are confident that our approach will be successful in finally bringing United's blatantly unlawful practice to an end." [GN] VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces Palermo Suit Over Denial of Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Palermo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP d/b/a VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 1:20-cv-09423 (D.N.J., July 24, 2020), alleges that the Defendant unlawfully misclassified the Plaintiff and other Home Loan Consultants as "exempt" from overtime pay within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, resulting in the denial of overtime compensation at one and a half times their "regular rate" of pay. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week. In this regard, the Plaintiff typically worked approximately 70 hours per week, including approximately 10 to 12 hours per day during the workweek, as well as 10 to 15 hours during the weekend. The Defendant was aware that the Plaintiff regularly worked far in excess of 40 hours per week. Despite working approximately 30 hours of overtime per week, the Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid overtime compensation at one and a half times his regular rate of pay due to the Defendant's misclassification of its Home Loan Officers as "exempt" under the FLSA and NJWHL. Plaintiff Joseph Palermo worked as a Home Loan Consultant for the Defendant from February 2017 until April 1, 2020. Valley National Bancorp, doing business as Valley National Bank, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-273-1054 Facsimile: 215-525-0210 Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA) and Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA) Class Period: September 16, 2019 to June 29, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020 Verrica is a dermatology therapeutics company that develops treatments for people living with skin diseases. Its lead product candidate, VP-102, is a drug-device combination of a topical solution of cantharidin administered through the Company's single-use precision applicator. The Company is initially developing VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum, or molluscum, a highly contagious and primarily pediatric viral skin disease, and common warts. On June 29, 2020, Verrica disclosed receipt of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. The letter identified certain deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements. Moreover, according to the Company, the FDA's information requests have included a "specific request related to a potential safety issue with the applicator that could arise if the instructions for use were not properly followed." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.06, or nearly 22%, to close at $11.01 per share on June 30, 2020. The complaint, filed on July 14, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's proprietary applicator used for VP-102 posed certain safety risks if the instructions were not properly followed; (2) that, as a result, Verrica would incorporate certain user features to mitigate the safety risk; (3) that the addition of the user feature would require additional testing for stability supportive data; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, regulatory approval for VP-102 was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Verrica class action go to: https://bespc.com/VRCA Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB) Class Period: November 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020 On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the U.S. Federal Reserve had sharply criticized Deutsche Bank's U.S. operations in an internal audit. The audit reportedly found that Deutsche Bank had failed to address multiple concerns identified years earlier, including concerns related to the bank's anti-money laundering ("AML") and other control procedures. On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell $0.31 per share, or 4.49%, to close at $6.60 per share on May 13, 2020. Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve's criticism of Deutsche Bank's failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable transactions from accounts associated with sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein and with two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, both of which were the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct. On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell $0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July 7, 2020 The complaint, filed on July 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the bank's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to AML, its disclosure controls, and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled condition; (ii) as a result, the bank failed to properly monitor customers that the bank itself deemed to be high risk; (iii) the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the bank's financial results and reputation; and (iv) as a result, the bank's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Deutsche Bank class action go to: https://bespc.com/DB About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] VERSO CORP: Settlement Reached in Retiree Insurance Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as CLIFFORD BAILEY and JAMES SPENCER, for themselves and others similarly-situated, and UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC, v. VERSO CORPORATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00332-MJN (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying the case as a class action; 2. preliminarily approving the parties' settlement to resolve this retiree life insurance class action; 3. approving the proposed Rule 23(c)(2)(A) notice to the class; and 4. setting a Rule 23(e)(2) hearing to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. Statement of Issues: -- The parties engaged in protracted class action litigation in the district court and reached agreement to resolve litigation. -- The Agreement provides for company-provided lifetime retiree life insurance in the amount of $2,750 to retirees and for $3,000 payment to the beneficiaries of any deceased retiree who died before the life insurance benefit is restored, and an award $80,000 fees and $2,874 costs payable to class counsel; and -- All parties believe that the Agreement is fair and reasonable. Verso Corporation is a North American producer of coated papers including coated groundwood, coated freesheet, supercalendered and specialty products.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart M. Israel, Esq. John G. Adam, Esq. LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C. 306 South Washington, Suite 600 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-5900 E-mail: israel@legghioisrael.com jga@legghioisrael.com - and - David M. Cook, Esq. COOK & LOGOTHETIS, LLC 30 Garfield Place, Suite 540 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 287-6980 E-mail: dcook@econjustice.com VI-JON INC: Moreno Files Suit in Southern District of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vi-Jon, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Moreno, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Vi-Jon, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-01446-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 27, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Vi-Jon is one of the nation's oldest private brand Health and Beauty Care manufacturers, serving retailers throughout North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 1501 San Elijo Hills Road South, Suite 104-212 San Marcos, CA 92078 Phone: (310) 400-1053 Fax: (212) 202-6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC) securities between February 2, 2018, and March 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wells Fargo investors have until August 14, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your Wells Fargo investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/wells-fargo-company-1/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On February 2, 2018, Wells Fargo entered into a consent order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "FRS Consent Order"), committing to comply with directives regarding its governance and risk management policies. The FRS Consent Order was part of an enforcement action brought against the Company in connection with certain of its fraudulent practices. Then, on March 4, 2020, a 113-page report revealed that Wells Fargo "fell woefully" short of implementing meaningful corporate reforms and that its risk and compliance policies remained dangerously inadequate to prevent another consumer fraud from occurring, thereby violating the FRS Consent Order. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.50, or over 6%, to close at $38.90 on March 5, 2020. Then, on March 10, 2020, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters requested that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") investigate the Company's former CEO, for providing false statements in the context of his public testimony a year earlier, in March 2019, which directly related to Wells Fargo's compliance with the FRS and OCC Consent Orders and its progress in developing and implementing effective and meaningful reforms. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.75, or over 7%, to close at $32.33, thereby injuring investors. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Wells Fargo had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting, particularly with respect to its risk and compliance management, policies and programs; (2) that the Company was not compliant with the regulatory consent orders entered into in 2018; (3) that the Company's remedial plans were inadequate, incomplete, and insufficient to prevent from future consumer abuses; (4) that as a result of the continued noncompliance with the regulatory consent orders, the Company was threatened with supervisory and/or enforcement actions and penalties; (5) that the Company's remedial measures and risk and compliance management remained inadequate to protect against consumer fraud; (6) 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 and omitted materials facts. If you purchased Wells Fargo securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 14, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] WELLS FARGO: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline --------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) Class Period: 2/2/2018 - 3/10/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 14, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-wfc-2/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients - including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Lewis Kahn Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Tel No: 1-877-515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 3 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 21 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. SRNE Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-information-request-form?prid=8076&wire=1 WFC Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=8076&wire=1 IDEX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ideanomics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8076&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRNE) SRNE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 15, 2020 - May 22, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-information-request-form?prid=8076&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro virus infection will not necessarily translate to to success or safety in vivo, or in person; (ii) the Company's finding was not a "cure" for COVID-19; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC) WFC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 5, 2020 - May 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=8076&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wells Fargo & Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDEX) IDEX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 20, 2020 - June 25, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 27, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ideanomics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8076&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ideanomics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Ideanomics' Mobile Energy Global Division in Qingdao, China (the "MEG Center") was not "a one million square foot EV expo center" as the Company had stated in press releases; (ii) the Company had been using doctored or altered photographs of the purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (iii) the Company's electric vehicle business in China was not performing nearly as strongly as Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky--http://www.zlk.com--isa nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 [GN] WELLS FARGO: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of Aug. 14 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of its client and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Wells Fargo & Co. ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC) from February 2, 2018 through March 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action is titled Perry v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al, No. 1:20-cv-04494 (S.D.N.Y.). If you are a shareholder who purchased Wells Fargo securities during the Class Period, you have until August 14, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as the Lead Plaintiff for the Class. Any member of the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice. To obtain a copy of the complaint or to discuss this lawsuit, contact Christian Levis at clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. Headquartered in San Francisco, California, Wells Fargo provides a range of financial products and services, including banking, consumer finance, credit cards, investments, leasing and mortgages. The Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo made false and misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period, repeatedly touting its efforts towards compliance with consent orders issued by the Federal Reserve, Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other government agencies. On March 4, 2020, a 113-page-report told the true story of Wells Fargo's compliance. The report stated that the Company had submitted insufficiently developed and inadequate remediation plans, struggled to meet deadlines, and failed to implement meaningful reforms. The government agencies overseeing the reform threatened supervisory and/or enforcement actions and additional penalties. Wells Fargo's stock declined from $41.40 to close at $37.09 on Friday, March 6, 2020, a decline of $4.31 or just over 10%. On March 10, 2020, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee requested that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate Wells Fargo's former CEO for providing false statements directly related to the Company's compliance while giving public testimony in 2019. On this news, Wells Fargo's shares fell from $34.63 per share to $27.20, a decline of $7.43 or more than 20%. About Lowey Dannenberg Since its inception in 1967, Lowey has specialized in the prosecution of complex civil class action lawsuits and has grown into one of the most successful shareholder litigation firms in the field. Its investor litigation group has recovered billions of dollars in the aggregate and has achieved landmark, long-term corporate governance changes at public companies. Over decades of zealous advocacy, Lowey has developed a profound knowledge of securities and antitrust class action litigation. Contact If you have any questions or want to discuss this lawsuit, contact Christian Levis at clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. Lowey Dannenberg P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: (914) 733-7256 Email: investigations@lowey.com [GN] WELLS FARGO: Tippett Sues Over False HELOC Mortgage Corrections --------------------------------------------------------------- Philip W. Tippett and Ingrid Tippett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., successor by merger to WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL BANK, Case No. 5:20-cv-00342 (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2020), is brought on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of borrowers, who obtained home equity line of credit loans from Wells Fargo and who had fraudulent Affidavits of Correction recorded, which purported to change the terms of their HELOC mortgages. The Plaintiffs say they and the class of Wells Fargo borrowers they seek to represent are victims of Wells Fargo's pattern of misconduct. Specifically, at the time they obtained purchase-money financing from Wells Fargo for their new home, the Plaintiffs and the Class members entered into an EquityLine with FlexAbility Agreement (also referred as the "EquityLine Agreement") with Wells Fargo, pursuant to which they were given access to a revolving line of credit secured by second mortgages on their homes. Because these HELOC loans are secured by second mortgage liens on borrowers' homes, it was crucial that the liens terminate after the final maturity date for the loans the date on which the borrowers must repay the outstanding balances in full, according to the complaint. Otherwise, if Wells Fargo's security interests in the properties terminated before the borrowers had repaid their debt, the balance of the debts due and owing would be unsecured, thus, exposing Wells Fargo to an increased risk of nonpayment across the entire product line. The Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo mishandled this important detail by including in its HELOC mortgages earlier maturity dates for the HELOC loans that did not reflect the terms of the EquityLine Agreements. This, in turn, caused the liens of the HELOC mortgages to terminate prior to the maturity dates of the HELOC loans. Upon realizing its mistake, and unwilling to expose itself to the risk of holding potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in unsecured debt, Wells Fargo undertook to change the terms of its HELOC mortgages fraudulently and without notice to its borrowers, according to the complaint. Instead of informing their customers of their mistake, Wells Fargo unilaterally recorded instruments entitled "Affidavit of Correction" in the counties where its borrowers resided, purporting to "correct" the maturity dates of the HELOC loans as stated on the HELOC mortgages. Wells Fargo executed and recorded the Affidavits of Correction without notifying borrowers, thus, clouding the titles to their properties and reducing the properties' value and marketability without borrowers' knowledge, the Plaintiffs contend. The Affidavits of Correction were fraudulent instruments, and subject Wells Fargo to criminal liability in every state where the lender recorded them, says the complaint. Plaintiffs Philip W. Tippett and Ingrid Tippett are residents and citizens of the State of Florida. Wells Fargo provides revolving lines of credit to consumers, including HELOC loans, which it often offers in conjunction with providing purchase-money financing of consumers' homes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Widlanski, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Robert Neary, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com - and - George Franjola, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE FRANJOLA 3610 E. Fort King St. Ocala, FL 34470 Phone: (352) 812-0462 Email: gfranjola@franjolalaw.com WESTPAC: Shine Lawyers Launch Class Action Over Rip-Off Car Loans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Business News Australia reports that class action law firm Shine Lawyers has launched a class action against Westpac and its subsidiaries, alleging the bank and car dealerships ripped-off customers with dodgy loans. The class action alleges so-called 'flex commission loans' unfairly rorted customers through a scheme that has since been banned by the corporate regulator. Shine class actions practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said the firm will allege car buyers signed-up to the loans as a result of lenders engaging in conduct that was unfair or dishonest. "If you bought a car from a dealership using 'in-store' finance for personal use from July 2014 to November 2018, you may have been the victim of a flex car loan rort," Antzoulatos said. "Under the now-banned scheme, dealerships spruiked cars with finance while failing to disclose the interest rate on the loans was arranged with the lender in exchange for commissions. "The commissions paid were the difference between the base interest rate and the rate car buyers agreed to, and in many cases this led to buyers paying exorbitant and unfair loans." Shine says Westpac and its subsidiaries including St George, Bank of Melbourne and Capital Finance Australia breached their obligations to customers under consumer credit legislation to provide services to car lenders fairly and honestly. "The bank and its subsidiaries failed to disclose to consumers the true nature of their commission structure with the car dealers and we will allege this was illegal," Antzoulatos said. "Buyers signed up to these rip-off loans while deals were made behind closed doors that were not disclosed, so car dealers and the lenders could piggyback hefty margins above the usual rates. "The extent of the damage to car buyers was identified in the Financial Services Royal Commission, which revealed the loans were costing consumers thousands of dollars." Shine says in some cases customers were charged between 6.5 per cent and 15.5 per cent interest over and above the base rate. The difference in the commission on the sale of these loans was $315 and $10,823 respectively. The class action will be filed in the Federal Court in the coming weeks and is open to buyers who took out a loan for personal use through their car dealer with Westpac or its subsidiaries between July 2014 and November 2018. The news comes as Westpac has appointed a new CFO on July 14, with Michael Rowland to step into the role. Rowland joins Westpac from KPMG where he is a partner in management consulting, specialising in financial services. Gary Thursby, the current acting CFO, will continue acting in the role until Rowland joins Westpac later in 2020. [GN] WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Appointed Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman, who on May 6, 2019, was appointed Lead Counsel in the securities class action brought on behalf of investors in Wirecard American Depository Shares (ADS) before Hon. Fernando M. Olguin, DelPoggetto v. Wirecard AG et al., 2:19-cv-00986-FMO-SK (C.D. Cal.), notifies investors in Wirecard ADS purchased in the United States with tickers WCAGY or WRCDF, that it will be filing an amended complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, as directed by the court, to include additional disclosures related to the original and amended complaints. The amended complaint will expand the alleged fraudulent period from 2015 to more recent events in 2020 and name the company's auditor, Ernst & Young, as an additional defendant. The amendments will include the recent events, including ex-Wirecard CEO Markus Braun's reported arrest and the widening criminal probes amid the disclosed $2.1 billion missing from the company's balance sheet. Lead counsel may add further parties and amendments. Hagens Berman urges investors in Wirecard securities traded in the United States, and persons with knowledge of the alleged fraud or who could otherwise further assist with the investigation, to contact the firm now: WRCDF@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Lead Counsel's & Lead Plaintiff's Pending Wirecard (WCAGY; WRCDF) Securities Fraud Class Action: The pending securities fraud case concerns Defendants' deliberate use of improper accounting designed to inflate sales and profits. On May 6, 2019, the Court appointed an individual Wirecard investor Lead Plaintiff for the Class and Hagens Berman as Lead Counsel. On Feb. 14, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a first amended class action complaint. Since this time, revelations about the full extent of the alleged accounting fraud continued and became worse. Most recently, The Financial Times reported Munich prosecutors rearrested Braun on suspicions Wirecard's accounting fraud began in 2015 and potential damages to banks and investors could amount to the equivalent of approximately $3.7 billion. The court has granted Lead Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, which will expand the alleged fraudulent period to cover recent stock drops caused by the revelation of Wirecard's financial fraud, including the company's June disclosures, the recent arrest of former CEO Markus Braun and the apparent reckless audit failures of Ernst & Young (Germany). "Wirecard's fraud is enormous and must have been assisted by others. We are focusing our investigation on who knew what and when, including their accountants," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.[GN] WIRECARD AG: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 8 Deadline -------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF) between August 17, 2015 and June 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 8, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wirecard investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Wirecard class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1880.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants, including the Company's auditor, throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Wirecard overstated its cash balances during the Class Period, falsely claiming it had EUR1.9 billion of cash in a trust account that was missing; (2) Wirecard overstated its financial results, including revenue and EBITDA; (3) Wirecard did not have adequate risk management or countermeasures; (4) Wirecard's auditor failed to audit the Company in accordance with applicable auditing principles; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about Wirecard's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1880.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] YAHOO: Judge Slashes $7MM on Fee Request in Data Breach Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that is there any federal judge who scrutinizes fee requests in class actions with the same rigor as U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of San Jose? Remember the no-poach class action against Dreamworks and Disney in which class counsel asked for more than $30 million and Judge Koh gave them $18.5 million? Or the $115 million Anthem data breach class action in which the judge was so concerned about plaintiffs' billing records that she appointed a special master to analyze them? In that case, class counsel had asked for nearly $38 million. Judge Koh agreed they'd achieved a great result for the class but awarded $31 million. The judge took out her machete again on July 21. She approved a $117.5 million class action settlement of Yahoo customers' claims that their personal information was compromised in multiple, undisclosed breaches of Yahoo's security. But the judge rejected class counsel's arguments that they should receive 25.5% of the class recovery, or $30 million. Instead, Judge Koh awarded class counsel about $22.8 million -- based not on a percentage of the class fund but on their lodestar billings. What's particularly interesting about Judge Koh's record on fee awards in class actions is that she doesn't always use the same method, even in mega settlements of more than $100 million. She is always tough. And she analyzes her awards under both the lodestar and percentage-of-fund methodologies. But in some cases, she bases fees on lodestar billings and in others on fund percentages. In the Dreamworks no-poach class action and a previous, $415 million no-poach class action settlement with Google, Apple and other tech companies, Judge Koh awarded fees based on lodestar billings to assure plaintiffs lawyers did not receive an unwarranted windfall. But in the Anthem case, even after intense review of class counsel's hourly billing records, the judge opted to award fees based on a percentage of the class recovery, albeit with a lodestar cross-check. Given that context, it's understandable that class counsel in the Yahoo case wavered in their preferred approach to a fee award, according to Judge Koh's opinion on July 21. In their original motion for preliminary settlement approval, the judge recounted, class counsel said their request for $35 million was based on lodestar billings and multiplier. Judge Koh denied that original motion in January 2019, in part because she thought the requested fees might be "unreasonably high." In a subsequent request for fees earlier this year, class counsel proposed an award based on a percentage of the $117.5 million class fund. "It is not clear to the court why class counsel's position has changed," Judge Koh said. I emailed class counsel from Morgan & Morgan; Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield; Tadler Law; Lockridge Grindal Nauen; and Robinson Calcagnie but didn't hear back. Yahoo counsel Ann Marie Mortimer of Hunton Andrews Kurth referred my email to a Verizon spokesperson who declined to comment. So why did Judge Koh go with a lodestar approach in the Yahoo case? She cited her own previous analysis in the high-tech no-poach case -- which she has described as "novel and highly complex" -- to explain that the lodestar method allows for consistency across class actions. And she said that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' benchmark of 25% in fees based on a share of class recovery would be a windfall for plaintiffs lawyers. In the Yahoo case, Judge Koh said, the magnitude of the settlement was more of a reflection of the vast size of the class of nearly 200 million Yahoo customers than of the efforts of plaintiffs lawyers. "The $117.5 million settlement fund is fair, adequate, and reasonable, but unremarkable," wrote Judge Koh. The case "did not present particularly complex issues," the judge said. After all, she said, rulings in previous data breach class actions, including her own in the Anthem litigation, have set precedent on such questions as constitutional standing for plaintiffs at risk of identity theft and a causal link between data breaches and alleged injuries. And though $117.5 million is, in absolute terms, the second-biggest cash recovery for members of a data breach class, Judge Koh said, the class recovery is far less impressive in per capita terms. The Equifax, Anthem, Home Depot and Target data breach class members all recovered more, on a per capita basis, than Yahoo plaintiffs, Judge Koh said -- and Yahoo was arguably at great risk of liability because it experienced multiple breaches and was accused of failing to disclose them. Moreover, Yahoo customer data, Judge Koh said, was sold on the dark web. In light of those factors, the judge said, the $117.5 million settlement seemed to be "a function of the size of the settlement class, and not a result of any special efforts by class counsel." The judge quibbled with some of class counsel's lodestar billings but ended up approving a lodestar of $19.8 million for past and future billings, only about $400,000 less than plaintiffs requested lodestar of just under $20.2 million. Judge Koh applied a 1.15 multiplier, to reward class counsel for the risk of contingency fee litigation, to arrive at the fee award of $22.8 million. For class counsel, the message from Judge Koh's fee rulings in megacases is to prepare for a bruising. You might not be able to predict how she will come to a decision. But you know this judge is going to make you earn your money. [GN] YAMBO INC: Chavarria Sues in S.D. Florida Alleging FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yambo, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Xiomara del Carmen Rios Chavarria and all others similarly situated v. Yambo, Inc., ARMANDO PEREZ SR., Case No. 1:20-cv-23101-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Yambo is a food & beverages company based out of Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. ZIDELL P.A. 300 71st St Ste 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141-3089 Phone: (305) 865-6766 The Defendants are represented by: Tara Elizabeth Faenza, Esq. LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO 44 West Flagler Street Courthouse Tower, 25th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 379-0400 Fax: (305) 379-9626 Email: tarafaenza@gmail.com YNAP CORP: Court Dismisses Guglielmo Action With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed the case, JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YNAP CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19 CV 10613-LTS-SDA. (S.D. N.Y.). The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the putative class action has been or will be settled. A full-text copy of the District Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/qu598am from Leagle.com Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Russel Craig Weinrib- cmenden@willkie.com - Willkie Farr and Gallagher. YNAP Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brittany Kate Lazzaro - blazzaro@tarterkrinsky.com - Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP. ZODIAC POOL: Ayala Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; FLUIDRA USA LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00017229-CU-OE-CTL (Filed May 27, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 20, 2020. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01381-H-MSB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint seeks recovery of monetary damages, civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code, and other relief against the Defendants for alleged failure to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages. Zodiac Pool manufactures pool and spa products. The Company's products include cleaners, pool covers, pumps, filters, heaters, lighting, valves, heat pumps, and other pool and spa products. Fluidra was founded in 1993. Fluidra's line of business includes manufacturing service industry machinery.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura R. Petroff, Esq. Tristan R. Kirk, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: lpetroff@winston.com tkirk@winston.com [*] Actors' Playhouse May Lead BI Insurance Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Mora, writing for Law.com, reports that Actors' Playhouse Productions could become the lead plaintiff in a multimillion-dollar nationwide class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida relating to insurance over business interruption Actors' Playhouse Productions is the operator of a landmark South Florida performing arts theater, the Miracle Theatre. [GN] [*] Baked Goods Companies Hit with IC Misclassification Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Reibstein, Esq.--rreibstein@lockelord.com--of Locke Lord LLP, in an article for JDSupra, highlights in this past month's news update two class action settlements entered into by bakery companies alleged to have misclassified product distributors as independent contractors. One of those baked goods companies has now incurred over $47 million settling IC misclassification cases brought by distributors. We also comment below on a new class action lawsuit filed against one of those bakery product companies. Selected companies in this industry have been targeted by class action lawyers representing independent distributors who claim that they are employees entitled to overtime and/or expense reimbursement. Calling themselves "delivery drivers," the distributors' allegations tend to minimize their entrepreneurial independence and focus on alleged direction and control by the defendant companies. There are ways by which companies in this and most other industries can minimize these types of lawsuits and maximize their compliance with independent contractor laws. Some food manufacturers that contract with distributors as well as a host of other companies that utilize independent contractors have used a process such as IC Diagnostics(TM) to structure, document, and implement their IC relationships in a manner that should satisfy independent contractor laws in virtually all states as well as under federal law. Many companies that have not taken effective steps to meaningfully enhance their level of compliance have incurred considerable resources to defend cases they could have avoided or paid large amounts to settle such cases. In the Courts (7 cases) BAKERY GIANT SUED BY DISTRIBUTORS / DRIVERS IN IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION. A distributor of baked goods produced by Bimbo Bakeries has commenced a proposed class and collective action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated drivers, claiming wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Vermont state law due to alleged misclassification as independent contractors and not employees. Bimbo Bakeries' brands include Entenmann's, Nature's Harvest, Thomas's, and Sara Lee. According to the complaint, the company requires most distributors to form corporations as a condition of working for them, and allegedly exercises "virtually unlimited control" over the drivers, including dictating all prices, requiring the drivers to deliver to stores that are not profitable, employing supervisors who travel to stores in the drivers' territories to review their work, and threatening to terminate distributors whose work does not meet the company's standards. In addition, the complaint alleges that the company makes deductions from the drivers' fees for items such as route loan repayments, their use of the company's electronic equipment, lost or stolen product, insurance coverage, supplies, and truck lease payments, and directly employs delivery drivers who perform the same work for the company as the plaintiff and the putative class but are treated as W-2 employees. Harrington v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-84 (D. Vt. June 3, 2020). FLOWERS FOODS SETTLES VERMONT CLASS ACTION IC MISCLASSIFICATION CASE FOR $7.6 MILLION. A Vermont federal district court has granted preliminary approval to a $7.6 million settlement reached between leading baked goods producer, Flowers Foods Inc., and class of food product distributors in an IC misclassification class and collective action under the FLSA and Vermont state law. Flowers Foods is the second-largest commercial bakery in the United States whose brands include Wonder Bread, Tastykake, Sunbeam, and Nature's Own. The company acquired Lepage, a wholly-owned subsidiary that bakes and produces various baked products; Lepage then contracted with independent distributors who purchased distribution rights to sell and distribute products to customers in defined territories. In December 2015, the distributors filed a class and collective action complaint against Flowers Foods and Lepage claiming defendants misclassified them as independent contractors and not employees. In their complaint, the distributors alleged that they were required to arrive at specified warehouses at specified times to stock their delivery vehicles with product; were responsible for delivering products to customers at times and locations specified by the company; and had no entrepreneurial influence over their day-to-day activities, including sale prices, shelf space within stores, orders, product selection, schedules, and delivery locations. After three years of discovery, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for $7.6 million and a number of non-monetary terms, including a Buy Back Option where Settlement Class Members who are current distributors are eligible to have their territories repurchased by Lepage, and creation and implementation of a Distributor Advocate position and Distributor Review Panel to oversee an alternate dispute resolution process and for resolution of contract-related disputes for independent distributors. Neff v. Flowers Foods Inc., No. 5:15-cv-00254 (D. Vt. June 4, 2020). In the prior two months, the same company settled two IC misclassification cases for a combined total of $21.6 million. One of those settlements was for $8.3 million covering distributors in North Carolina, and the other was for $13.3 million for distributors in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. That same company settled similar lawsuits in the past for another $18 million: $9 million covering distributors in Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Missouri, and before that for $9 million in yet another case involving North Carolina distributors. FLOWERS FOODS ALSO FACES NEW CLASS ACTION FOR IC MISCLASSIFICATION IN CALIFORNIA. Less than a week after it settled the Vermont case, Flowers Foods was sued by distributors in California in another class and collective action lawsuit filed in federal court alleging violations under the FLSA and state Unfair Competition Law due to their alleged misclassification as independent contractors. The allegations in the California case are similar to those in the Vermont case with regard to claims that Flowers exercises control and direction over the distributors. The plaintiff alleges: "In short, Flowers sells the notion that these ‘independent contractors' will run and control their own sales-related business for their own profit and gain. But Flowers never actually operates its business under these terms, despite Deliver Employees' heavy investment and reliance on the promises Flowers makes." Maciel v. Flowers Foods Inc., No. 3:20-cv-03814 (N. D. Cal. June 10, 2020). DOORDASH SUED BY LOCAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR ALLEGED IC MISCLASSIFICATION. The San Francisco District Attorney has filed a misclassification lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California against DoorDash, Inc. alleging violations of the state Unfair Competition Law due to alleged misclassification of delivery persons as independent contractors and not employees. The complaint alleges that DoorDash, Inc., a technology company that facilitates food delivery through its on-line platform that connects customers, local restaurants/stores, and delivery drivers who are called "Dashers," cannot satisfy the newly-enacted three-pronged ABC test now in use in California to establish independent contractor status. According to the complaint, DoorDash fails to meet Prong A requiring that the Dashers are free from control and direction by DoorDash because DoorDash allegedly requires usage of its App and compliance with its company policies; determines the eligibility requirements before a Dasher may begin making deliveries; dictates when and whether any Dasher is assigned to pick up and deliver a customer order; decides when, whether, and how many deliveries it will route to the Dashers; tracks and collects significant amounts of data regarding each Dasher's deliveries, including number of acceptances and rejections of engagements, the amount of time each delivery takes, tip amounts, customer ratings, and number of deliveries per shift; and sets forth instructions as to how to handle food pick-ups, how long to wait at a customer location, and how to communicate with customers. The complaint also alleges that DoorDash cannot meet Prong B requiring that the work performed by Dashers is outside of DoorDash's usual course of business because the Dashers and DoorDash are in the same business, which the complaint alleges is providing deliveries. Finally, the complaint also alleges that DoorDash cannot satify Prong C, which requires a showing that Dashers are engaged in an independently established trade or business because the Dashers are not customarily engaged in their own business, do not typically operate their own independent delivery companies while working for DoorDash, do not market themselves as professional delivery persons, and are not considered to be performing skilled work. People of the State of California v. DoorDash, Inc., No. CGC-20-584789 (Super. Ct. San Francisco County June 16, 2020). U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SUES AUTO TRANSPORT COMPANY FOR IC MISCLASSIFICATION. The United States Department of Labor has filed an FLSA suit against a transport company, ProCorp, LLC, in Michigan federal court seeking an injunction and unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages for 700 drivers due to alleged misclassification as independent contractors. In a News Release issued June 16, 2020 by the Labor Department, its Wage and Hour Division conducted an investigation determining that ProCorp violated the FLSA by misclassifying drivers, who move new vehicles throughout the metro-Detroit area, as independent contractors and not employees. In support of its misclassification claim, the DOL alleges that the drivers were economically dependent on ProCorp because ProCorp controlled the drivers' work, set the rates of pay without negotiation, and required them to sign broad non-compete agreements, and the drivers performed work integral to ProCorp's business, had limited investment in the business, lacked the opportunity for profit or loss, and performed work requiring limited skill and initiative. Scalia v. ProCorp, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-11447 (E.D. Mich. June 3, 2020). BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE SUED BY DELIVERY DRIVERS IN CLASS ACTION ALLEGING INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MISCLASSIFICATION. Delivery drivers have commenced a class action in Connecticut federal court against Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC and a logistics company, NEHDS Logistics, LLC, claiming defendants, as joint employers, violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions under the FLSA and Connecticut wage and hour law due to the misclassification of the delivery drivers as independent contractors and not employees. According to the complaint, the delivery drivers delivered Bob's furniture to Bob's customers, wearing Bob's apparel and sometimes using Bob's trucks. NEHDS Logistics is a provider of delivery and logistics services for Bob's and other companies, and is alleged to maintain a warehouse where it stored its own vehicles, Bob's vehicles and vehicles belonging to another entity, all of which were used interchangeably to deliver Bob's furniture by delivery drivers who claim they were jointly employed by the defendants. The delivery drivers further claim that they received their delivery instructions from Bob's and NEHDS employees, were expected to report each morning at the NEHDS facility, communicated with Bob's and NEHDS employees throughout the workday, handled paperwork and invoices with Bob's customers and NEHDS, and were subject to reprimand and termination by Bob's and NEHDS. The complaint also alleges that the three-pronged ABC test applied under Connecticut law to determine independent contractor/employee status does not establish IC status. However, it appears that plaintiff's counsel used the test for independent contractor status under the state's unemployment insurance law. A motion to dismiss presumably will be filed by defendants, although plaintiffs will likely be able to amend the complaint to plead the correct legal standard. Mendez v. Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC, No. 3:20-cv-00849 (D. Conn. June 19, 2020). IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION CERTIFIED IN NEW YORK AGAINST LOGISTICS COMPANY. A federal district court in New York has certified as a class action an independent contractor misclassification claim brought by drivers against logistics provider, HomeDeliveryLink, Inc. (HDL). The plaintiffs brought claims for illegal wage deductions and recordkeeping violations under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) due to alleged misclassification as independent contractors. According to court papers filed by the plaintiffs, HDL is a third-party logistics company that operates as a "freight-forward broker" for Innovel Solutions, Inc., a company that warehouses merchandise for retailers. The drivers, through their own business entities, enter independent contractor agreements with HDL and deliver merchandise from the Innovel warehouses to ‎ customers' homes throughout New York State. ‎Among the allegations supporting the IC misclassification claim, HDL allegedly required all drivers to create a business entity; deducted from the drivers' pay certain expenses such as the cost of truck rental, fuel, workers' compensation, and liability insurance; provided training during an orientation period; supervised and directed the drivers; observed the drivers loading their trucks; monitored the drivers' appearance; performed ride-alongs to evaluate the drivers' performance; determined which drivers would work each day; prepared the routes; and required the drivers to download an app allowing customers to acknowledge receipt of delivery and provide a means for HDL to monitor driver status. Kloppel v. HomeDeliveryLink, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-06296 (W.D.N.Y. June 3, 2020). Legislative Initiatives (1 item) IOWA LAW PROTECTS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OWNER-OPERATOR TRUCKERS. Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed into law on June 18, 2020 a bill (SF2296) that protects the independent contractor status of owner-operator truckers by defining the meaning of the term "owns" to include those with the right to purchase their truck. Iowa State Representative Gary Worthan (R-Storm Lake), who has a family trucking business, sponsored the bill and stated: "It will include anyone who owns their truck, truck tractor, or tractor-tractor combination. It will also include those who are in a purchase agreement, or a lease-to-purchase agreement . . ." The passage of this bill is seen by many as a backlash against what has transpired in California following the enactment of AB5, where owner-operator truckers and scores of other workers in other industries are now required to meet a test that could eliminate the ability of truckers to maintain an independent business. Other Noteworthy Developments (1 item) CALIFORNIA EARMARKS $20 MILLION TO ENFORCE AB5 LAW. On June 29, 2020, California Governor Newsom signed the 2020 Budget Act earmarking $20 million for enforcement of AB5 in the 2020-2021 budget year. AB5 took effect January 1, 2020 and established a strict statutory test for determining independent contractor status, as we have commented in several of our blog posts. The Budget provides resources to implement AB5, including $17.5 million to the Department of Industrial Relations, $3.4 million for the Employment Development Department, and $780,000 for the Department of Justice. According to the Budget summary, "These resources will allow these state entities to train employees on the application of the ABC test and to conduct more hearings, investigations, and litigation related to AB5." Despite the views by many that AB5 essentially eliminates all independent contractors in the state except for a select few who were carved out with exemptions, we commented in our blog post of September 11, 2019 that many companies using ICs may be able to comply with the law without a change in their business model. [GN] [*] Class Actions Filed Over Syndicated Conservation Easements -------------------------------------------------------------- Peter J Reilly, writing for Forbes, reports that there were four Tax Court decisions disallowing deductions totaling over $20 million claimed by partnerships sharing Effingham Managers LLC as tax matters partner. The swarm of revenue agents disallowing deductions are the skeeters. And then there is that DOJ effort against the industry leader Ecovest. DOJ can be one mean gator. But another gator may now be causing even more aggravation. Class action attorneys led by David Deary have filed two lawsuits against promoter groups. Jay Adkisson covered Lechter et al v Aprio LLP et al on Forbes.com on March 28. That was the very day I started my Paycheck Protection frenzy from Tylertown Mississippi, which is why I did not get to it. On July 3, 2020, Deary filed a complaint on behalf of William N. Turk, Carlita B. Turk, Norman Radow and "all others similarly situated". There are thirty defendants. The plaintiffs invested in syndicated conservation easement partnerships and the IRS has issued Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments. Mr. Deary told me that the issuance of the FPAA is the point at which the investors are in a position to claim damages. In both cases, there was a Tax Court petition filed and the cases are presently docketed - Lakepoint Land II LLC and Industrial S&G LLC. The Problem With Syndicated Conservation Easements For what the problem is with syndicated conservation easements is I will refer you to my piece--Syndicated Conservation Easements--An Industry Based On Nonsense. It is just not possible to buy land and shortly give away the development rights and come out ahead from the tax savings without fibbing on the valuation. The market for commercial real estate is imperfect, but it does have quite a few very smart people. A Massive Conspiracy At this point all there is is a complaint and as Jay Adkisson pointed out in his piece, a complaint is a very one-sided narrative: "Complaint is nothing like an adjudication of the issues that it contains but simply a number of allegations which can be utterly true or utterly false, and recalling the lawyer's saying that "any fool with $500 can file a Complaint"." The picture that the complaint paints is of a massive conspiracy. "This case involves the development and implementation of a fraudulent scheme to sell a flawed and defective tax-savings strategy: a Syndicated Conservation Easement Strategy (the "SCE Strategy"). . . . . . the Defendants utilized a prepackaged collection of misrepresentations, omissions, deficient form documents, faulty conservation easement deeds, and bogus appraisals to promote, sell and implement the SCE Strategy, which the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") has determined, as structured and implemented, does not comply with the requirements of Section 170(h) of the Code" There are lawyers, accountants, consultants, not-for-profit leaders, appraisers and wild turkeys among the defendants. The complaint does not suggest that the wild turkeys were in on it, although it does not absolve them. The rest of the bunch. They are all bad. The Mastermind According to the complaint, the mastermind is Timothy Pollock, now retired from the law firm Morris, Manning & Martin. Pollock is still listed on the firm's website where we learn that: "Mr. Pollock is well known for his expertise related to conservation easement transactions. He has acted as lead tax counsel in over 250 syndicated and non-syndicated transactions over the past eight years. He was a founding board member of Partnership for Conservation ("P4C"), a diverse national coalition of stakeholders in more than 40 states representing the entire conservation easement ecosystem, where he served for two years. He remains an active member of P4C." Included in his "Representative Experience" we find: "Representation of landowners and partnership donors of conservation easements involving more than $1 billion of federal charitable deductions." (Emphasis added) I was unable to contact Mr. Pollock, but I did reach Simon R. Malko, the Managing Partner of Morris, Manning. Mr. Malko had no comment on the litigation. Atlantic Coast Conservancy Atlantic Coast Conservancy Inc. stands out among the defendants along with its CEO Robert Keller. ACC and Keller also appear as defendants in the Aprio case filed in March. They were featured in a 2017 ProPublia piece by investigative reporter Peter Elkind--The Billion-Dollar Loophole. Doctor Keller (he has a Ph.D. in conservation biology from Wake Forest University) had no comment for me either about the litigation or the state of the industry generally. When it comes to ACC and Keller, a different narrative might be that he is passionate about conservation and considers any land set aside a victory for the future. The cost to the federal government in tax revenue is immaterial. This would be consistent with the Partnership For Conservation view that the true value for computing the deduction is a highest and best use future value that is entirely detached from the current market for raw land. The complaint raises one issue that would call that narrative into question. "Keller would not allow the Atlantic Coast Conservancy to receive any conservation easement donation unless Pollock agreed that Keller's other company, ERMF, was allowed to prepare would prepare each and every Baseline Documentation Report . . . In other words, Keller had a "side hustle" that generated substantial revenue for his own personal benefit that would have otherwise gone to the ACC." ERMF--Environmental Research and Mapping Facility LLC--is also named as a defendant. Georgia On My Mind David Deary and Elkind's ProPublica piece confirm something I have picked up from a variety of off-the record sources. This industry is a Georgia thing. The players are centered around Atlanta and Rome, Georgia. Rome, Georgia with a population of less than 40,000 seems an improbable place to be a center of a massive tax shelter scheme, but if you look at its history, you will find that it has some colorful events including the Trail of Tears, defense by Nathan Bedford Forrest, attack by Sherman and the gift of a statue by Mussolini who liked the city's name. Off-the-record sources have told me that anyone in the business community in Rome who speaks negatively about the shelters will be ostracized. Another comment I got was that the phenomenon was beginning to hurt the economy as they ran out of land that was not protected. It is worth noting that protected land has spread out from Georgia with deals in South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee. Investors are also being sought further afield. I heard from people in Brooklyn and California who had been presented with deals. In David Deary's view, though, the brains are still all in Georgia, which may end up being not such a good thing for the promoters. About David Deary David Deary of Loewinsohn Flesle Deary Simon LLP in Dallas got his law degree from the University of Texas in 1991. He made a name for himself in the fallout from the turn of millennium tax shelters first exposed by Janet Novack in 1998 in a piece titled The Hustling of X Rated Tax Shelters. It was Deary that led the class action effort against the major players including Jenkens and Gilchrist, which was destroyed by the fallout from the settlement. I recently covered the latest news on the JC partner most responsible for the shelters. Paul Daugredas was seeking compassionate release from the Marion Satellite Prison Camp in light of his vulnerability to Covid-19. The class action settlements came before the criminal convictions. Mr. Deary told me that at the hearings on the class-action cases, there were usually people from DOJ taking notes. It Might Be Worse Assuming for the sake of argument that this is going to go from bad to worse for the syndication promoters, I think there is a chance that they will get much more crushed than the Son of Boss promoters. The Son of Boss people were sheltering really big players from paying taxes on major liquidity events. One of the first cases I covered in that area was that of Richard Egan, the founder of EMC, selling founders stock. The SCE strategy has a different sort of client mix than SOB did. It is more people with six figure incomes who might be saving hundred of thousands rather than millions. More significantly, the players are regional and local. They don't have the resources and prestige of KPMG, PWC, BDO and Deutsche Bank. I fear that as David Deary and DOJ go marching through Georgia, they will leave a trail of professional devastation that might be an overreaction. That's The Way It Goes At Joseph B Cohan and Associates in the eighties, Herb Cohan, of blessed memory, seemed to be of the school that specialization is for insects, but I did end with a specialization of sorts and it was "the shelters" to distinguish it from my buddy Mikey who had "the dealerships". They were low-income housing partnerships mostly sponsored by community development corporations. They were horrendously complicated, although Mikey claimed automobile LIFO was harder. What is relevant here though is the infrastructure that grew up around the deals. Joseph B Cohan and Associates got into low-income housing, because we had a lot of dentists who needed shelter. As the industry changed as the tax law changed we stayed in, because we could do the work. There were accountants, lawyers, construction companies, real estate management companies, consultants of various sorts, financial planners and the management of the not-for-profits. People would come up with new ideas to tweak the structures, which would sometimes propagate. I don't know if they would all have stood up to intense scrutiny, but as it happens, the IRS never came knocking during the whole quarter century I was fooling with those things. Better to be lucky than good. That is what troubles me about much of the conspiracy narrative in the complaint. "The accounting firms and accountants that were part of the conspiracy alleged herein (the "Return Preparers") . . . . . . The Return Preparers prepared the K-1s with the intent that each Plaintiff and member of the Class would utilize their respective K-1 to claim a charitable contribution deduction from the SCE Strategy . . . . . The Return Preparers were by no means independent accountants, but were, in fact, part of the conspiracy that designed, promoted, sold, and implemented the SCE Strategy and knew or should have known that the charitable contribution deductions the Return Preparers reported on the partnership returns and, in turn, the K-1s were neither legally nor factually supportable . . . . . " I'm kind of skeptical about that part, probably because I am having a "There but for the grace of God, go I" sort of feeling. I do have to say though that there were a number of shelter proposals pitched to the JBC partners for our clients that I resisted. "Mining with tax dollars" comes to mind. Four to one deductions on gold mines somewhere or other. Other Defendants I reached out to as many of the thirty defendants as I could find contact information for. As noted earlier I got "no comment" from a couple of the major players. There were two substantial responses. Carol Frampton Chief of Legal Services for the National Wild Turkey Federation issued a statement: "The NWTF is aware of the dispute involving donations made to the NWTF Research Foundation and American Upland Land Trust, LLC, but have not been officially notified of a lawsuit. We have not had the opportunity to review the court case to enable us to comment. Conservation, including land protection, is a vital part of the mission of the National Wild Turkey Research Foundation and the American Upland Land Trust" The National Wild Turkey Federation is dedicated to "the conservation of the wild turkey and the preservation of our hunting heritage". That begs for an ironic remark, but I will pass. Christopher Graham of The Private Client Law Group wrote me: "I received your separate inquiries. I can confirm that Aaron Kowan was a non-equity partner at The Private Client Law Group ("TPCLG") from 2012 through 2015 and Jason Cordon (also mentioned in the lawsuit), who had previously worked together, joined Mr. Kowan's team at TPCLG in 2014. In the fall of 2015, prior to the 2016 IRS notice regarding syndicated conservation easements, TPCLG and Mr. Kowan's team mutually agreed to part ways. From 2012 to 2015 all conservation easement legal work was performed by Mr. Kowan and his team. There is no expertise in conservation easement syndication among the attorneys at TPCLG prior to 2012 nor from 2015 through today. No conservation easement syndicator has been represented by TPCLG since 2015." Based on a cursory review of our records it appears that the only involvement of TPCLG in the matters listed in the lawsuit was advice provided by Mr. Kowan to one investor at the request of another party to the lawsuit with total fees paid to TPCLG of $2,500." It is worth noting that the only substantive filing beyond the complaint in the Aprio case so far came from an Atlanta accounting firm that denies any involvement at all in the deals. "As stated herein, ———— has never been engaged by any of the Plaintiffs case for any services, and after searching its records, it has found no evidence of any communication or agreement with Plaintiffs" Go figure. A Practical Point Not that I would take it to the bank but Mr.Deary told me that tax preparers who had just followed the K-1 in preparing a clients return will not get swept up in his dragnet. But I am really worried about what you are supposed to do if your client comes in with one of these things. The strategy that I would go with is to file Form 8082 with your return and not claim the deduction on the K-1. Make a note to put in a refund claim before the statute of limitations runs in the event that the fickle finger of fate does not fall on your partnership. It is better to be lucky than good. The IRS does have a settlement offer out, but it only applies to cases currently in Tax Court. Other Coverage Aysha Bagchi has More Conservation Land Deal Promoters Face Proposed Class Action. It's behind a paywall so I don't know if she is talking turkey at all, but the people at NWTF told me that Bloomberg was the only other venue they heard from. Lew Taishoff has "Devil Went Down To Georgia" about the Effingham decisions. He mentions the Turk class action, but that was because I provoked him. "My esteemed colleague Peter Reilly, CPA, solicitous for my well-being and fearing I might be suffering from insomnia, sent me a 168 (count 'em, 168) page complaint filed in USDCNDGA, entitled William N. Turk, et al. v. Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, et al. Not suffering from insomnia, I have not read the same in detail, but it seems the Turks want to be class-action reps for all those who got taken to the cliché in these syndicated easement deals. Y'all will recollect that the lead defendant was involved in the Son-of-BOSS mix-and-match dodges, which I principally blogged with the Billyhawks. See my blogpost "Are You Being Served?" 1/16/15. Mr Reilly tells me lead plaintiffs' counsel is the firm that took down Jenkens & Gilchrist, major dodgefloggers. If you have insomnia, a PACER account, and want to spring for the seventeen bucks, you can scope it out. Me, I'll wait until it hits justitia.com." Of course, you now have the link from me. [GN] [*] Class Actions on the Rise Due to COVID-19 Pandemic ------------------------------------------------------ Epiq, in an article for JDSupra, reports that class actions are on the rise and many class action lawyers predict that it will continue to grow because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, as of this April, over 150 class actions related to losses tied to the pandemic were filed and the number will only continue to increase. Several people who prepaid for travel, education, events, and other goods or services are now at a loss after being forced into cancellations. This is just a small illustration of how the pandemic has monetarily harmed large classes of people across nearly every industry. Affected groups like these and others may turn to class actions as an outlet to remedy their damages. What Type of COVID-19 Class Actions Have Popped Up Recently? It is not surprising that 'failure to refund' types of class actions have already taken form. Naturally, consumers asked for refunds if they could no longer do the things they paid due to pandemic-related restrictions. Considering all the uncertainty related to the pandemic, consumers were shocked when businesses denied their refund requests. The biggest instance of this type of consumer upset was with airline companies. When the US went on lockdown, people who had paid for flights, which were promptly cancelled, were still ineligible to receive a refund for those flights. Currently, there are over 40 class actions against several domestic airline companies for failure to refund people who paid for flights they were unable to take because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The push to consolidate all airline cases into multidistrict litigation is increasing. The common theme in all these suits are arguments which claim that while the airlines allow for refunds in their contracts, they denied refund requests for flights grounded due to the pandemic. Instead of refunds, many airlines presented consumers with vouchers for future travel, which is not what consumers wanted. Regardless if multidistrict litigation comes into fruition, the court may likely certify a good number of these class actions which will be costly to struggling airline companies and they will need to consider the benefits of a global settlement. Other 'failure to refund' cases are being filed against educational institutions, event ticketing agencies, hotels, fitness clubs, and more. These cases are tricky because these organizations stopped providing access to their students, members, or the public because government-issued restrictions required them to cease operations. Should these types of organizations have to issue refunds for travel expenses consumers expended but were never able to enjoy? Or for monthly fees related to facility usage that members were unable to take advantage of due to these restrictions? Or to students who were forced to finish their college semester remotely and live off-campus? Besides 'failure to refund' cases, there have been some class actions against cruise lines for continuing normal operations despite knowing that coronavirus risks were increasing. By maintaining standard operations, cruise lines put staff and passengers at harm. Plaintiffs should expect to see these businesses and institutions challenge class certification, invoke force majeure clauses, and assert other defenses to attempt dismissal. This is unchartered territory and the courts are going to need to make tough decisions when it comes to proceeding with class actions stemming from the pandemic. Predictions for the Future The amounts of class actions that may result from the pandemic are endless. It is certain that courts will see an increase in the 'failure to refund' cases discussed above since this issue affected several different groups of consumers. However, other classes that could pop up in the courts over the next year or so will likely include: * Individuals affected by personal protection equipment, like masks and gloves, that failed to sufficiently protect a person. * Employees and/or consumers who became sick because businesses failed to implement safe work practices after reopening. * Smaller businesses that did not receive appropriate aid from banks because they instead prioritized their larger clients and institutions. * Consumers affected by businesses that price gouged certain necessities after the government declared a state of emergency. * Companies or employees that are experiencing privacy violations under new laws like the CCPA and the increased use of videoconferencing software (like Zoom). These are just a few examples of other instances where large classes of people could have merited class action claims related to the pandemic. Many other scenarios are plausible. In addition, individual lawsuits relating to the above and other pandemic related harm will definitely continue rise. Conclusion As with most aspects of life, the pandemic's impacts are changing the class action landscape. The growing number of class actions in the U.S. will steadily continue to rise and evolve as new issues come into light. Litigators and businesses should keep in mind that these cases may take some time since several states are phasing in their reopening plans. Upon reopening, the courts will need to work through backlogs and cases that were stalled during shutdowns. Regardless, as businesses reopen, they need to keep class actions on the top of their minds. Some best practices include implementing clear communication with employees and the public about safety measures and having strong risk controls in place prior to resuming operations. Controls could include posting extra warnings on websites and business doors about individual safety measures and risks associated with the coronavirus. These types of safety precautions and others can help limit the number of class actions in the future and provide businesses with legal protections. [GN] [*] Corporate Regulator Responds to Class Action Crackdown ---------------------------------------------------------- Ben Butler, writing for The Guardian, reports that the corporate regulator has told parliament it does not know how a clampdown on litigation funders introduced by treasurer Josh Frydenberg will work, less than five weeks before the changes are due to come into force. In a shambolic morning of evidence to a parliamentary committee, Australian Securities and Investments Commission officers revealed the regulator had just two public documents to work from in coming up with a response to Frydenberg's move--his media release and a regulatory impact statement. Frydenberg's new regulation will require litigation funders, which bankroll lawsuits including class actions in return for a cut of any winnings, to hold a financial services licence. The move is one of two measures attacking litigation funders and class actions introduced by Frydenberg at the peak of the coronavirus crisis--in the other, he alarmed investors by watering down continuous disclosure rules requiring listed companies to keep the market up to date on their financial situation. Big business and the US chamber of commerce have been campaigning heavily against class actions and litigation funders, prompting a fightback by the industry. The Morrison government is also running a parliamentary inquiry on the issue, which descended into farce on July 13 after a witness from the Liberal-aligned Menzies Research Institute was accused of misquoting a judge in a submission attacking class actions. In testimony to parliament on July 15, Asic initially tried to walk back previous evidence that it had not been told about the litigation funder changes until the day before Frydenberg announced them. The commissioner responsible for enforcement, Daniel Crennan, QC, said former commissioner John Price "met with Treasury officials regularly throughout March, April and May to discuss the possible content of prospective legislative instruments, including one relating to the continuous disclosure regime". He said Asic's views on continuous disclosure and litigation funding were also on the public records through its submissions to the Australian Law Reform Commission. However, under close questioning from Labor senator Deborah O'Neill, Asic commissioner Karen Chester said that although Treasury asked the regulator some "technical questions" about litigation funding in April, it was never asked for policy advice on the issue. Asic's interactions with the treasurer, his office and Treasury over the sudden change are now set to be revealed after O'Neill asked the regulator to put them on the public record. Chairman James Shipton said Frydenberg told him about the changes in a phone call during working hours on 21 May, the day before the treasurer unveiled the measure. "There was a flurry of conversations" in the lead-up to the announcement, he said. Chester and the Asic executive director, Warren Day, were unable to answer O'Neill's detailed questions about how legal requirements covering financial services licensees would apply to litigation funders. "It sounds like it was policy on the run," O'Neill said. Chester and Day did not respond. [GN] [*] Gross Law Firm Announces Several Shareholder Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. United States Oil Fund, LP (NYSE:USO) The Lawsuit is on behalf of shareholders of United States Oil Fund, LP who purchased shares between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and/or pursuant or otherwise traceable to the Fund's March 19, 2020 registration statement. A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in United States Oil Fund, LP. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary market conditions in early 2020 made USO's purported investment objective and strategy unfeasible; (2) as excess oil supply increased and oil prices plummeted, the facilities available for storage in Cushing approached capacity, causing a "super contango" in which the futures prices for oil substantially exceeded the spot price; (3) instead of revealing the known impacts and risks to the Fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares in March 2020; and (4) as a result USO suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/united-states-oil-fund-lp-loss-submission-form/?id=8091&from=1 Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CODX) Investors Affected: February 25, 2020 - May 15, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Co-Diagnostics, Inc. According to the filed complaint, Co-Diagnostics and its directors and officers (including PhD-level scientists who should know better) made continual, knowing, and willful misstatements about the Company's main product, a Covid-19 diagnostic test. These misstatements had the effect of pumping up the price of Co-Diagnostics' stock while Company officers and directors exercised low-priced options and dumped their stock into the market. Co-Diagnostics' fraudulent misstatements displayed a disregard for basic scientific principles and caused investors to lose millions of dollars. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/co-diagnostics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8091&from=1 Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTC PINK:BAYRY) Lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May 23, 2016 and March 19, 2019. A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) following its acquisition of Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at risk of suffering billions of dollars in judgments and reputational damage if the lawsuits brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure to its glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were successful, 2) a result, Defendants' positive statements about the prospects of the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create for Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form/?id=8091&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] [*] India CCPA Class Action Provision to Impact E-Commerce Firms ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Soni, writing for Financial Express, reports that the Consumer Protection Act has conferred the CCPA with the power to order trader or manufacturer or advertiser or publisher to discontinue advertising found to be misleading following an investigation. The act stated that failure to comply with the orders can attract penalty up to Rs 50 lakhs. E-commerce companies like Amazon and Flipkart will now have to keep an even closer eye on the quality of goods sold on its marketplace with the introduction of the provision for class action lawsuits in the newly notified Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The act, which also covered e-commerce sector, provided for recalling of goods that are not safe or dangerous to use, reimbursing the price of the goods, or discontinuing "of practices which are unfair and prejudicial to consumers' interest," the act noted. It included setting up of a central authority called Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to look into such class action lawsuits for matters pertaining to violation of consumer rights or unfair trade practices or false or misleading advertisements impacting. "E-commerce companies are already ensuring with their internal quality assurance processes and vendor audits, that products are genuine and nothing is misleading, So, I don't anticipate it to be a new issue from the product damage point of view but it increases the compliance, audit and governance requirements for companies to ensure suppliers comply with these. While slippages sometimes do happen due to process issues, the rigour around these process will increase now," Ankur Pahwa, Partner and National Leader, E-commerce and Consumer Internet, Ernst & Young India told Financial Express Online. Flipkart, for instance, through its seller rating mechanism, which tracks customer rating, the number of returns, and seller cancellations, understands how credible is the seller. A drop in ratings beyond "a preset cut-off limit, the issue is flagged and investigated" and if found guilty, the seller is blacklisted from the marketplace and products are de-listed, Flipkart said in one of its blogs. Amazon too has provision to "immediately suspend or terminate your selling privileges or return, dispose of or destroy inventory in our fulfillment centres," apart from withholding or forfeiting remittances and payments, according to details available on its seller central page as part of its Anti-Counterfeiting policy. Amazon and Flipkart didn't comment for this story. Under the Act, CCPA will house an Investigation Wing led by a Director General to carry out an investigation under the act. The act has also conferred CCPA with the power to order trader or manufacturer or advertiser or publisher to discontinue advertising that is found to be misleading following an investigation. The act stated that failure to comply with the orders can attract penalty up to Rs 50 lakhs and prohibiting endorsements that may extend to three years. The notification of the Act with the establishing of CCPA to enable class action lawsuits has been welcomed by retail consumers. According to a survey conducted by community social media platform LocalCircles, which received over 48,000 responses from consumers based in 270 districts in India, 95 per cent respondents said that introduction of class action lawsuits helps ease the redressal process for misleading advertisement, defective products, and deficient services. Moreover, 75 per cent consumers who were subject to an unfair trade practice in the past three years weren't able to get support from the brand or service provider to solve it, the survey noted. Also, 51 per cent respondents claimed they couldn't assistance from the brand or manufacturer to fix a defective product. "For instance, we have complaints from consumers who ordered refrigerators or air conditioners in March and April this year but they weren't delivered earlier via an online platform citing lockdown as a reason. They allege several months later they have been asked to reorder the same products at lower discounts and that their money was kept by the platform for several months," Sachin Taparia, CEO, LocalCircles told Financial Express Online. Since the issue has been reported by a number of consumers, per the recently notified Consumer Protection Act 2019, they can potentially file a complaint with the CCPA or the Dept of Consumer Affairs urging them to evaluate this for class action, he added. If the government implements this well, it can solve a lot of issues related to product defects, service deficiencies, and misleading ads both in the offline and online sectors, Taparia said. This is likely to increase the compliance cost for companies including e-commerce companies and suppliers as they will have a lot of back-to-back arrangements to address these types of issues. "However, increasing the cost will be marginal because a lot of these companies are already taking steps towards it," Pahwa added. [GN] [*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Keys to Settlements -------------------------------------------------------- Donald Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that fundamental to the ability to settle a class action is understanding the interests that are being represented by the parties and other stakeholders. Although any given case might present its own unique circumstances, in general the interests can be described as follows. 1. Named Plaintiffs. The interests of the named plaintiffs are the most obvious and immediate, yet also can be viewed, and often are treated, as the least important. That's because the named plaintiffs have chosen to serve as representatives of a larger group, and in so doing, have agreed to pursue the greater good rather than simply act in their own self-interest. That they have done so does not mean that they have relinquished their personal interests in the settlement; only that they have assumed a responsibility to look beyond them to support a settlement that is fair to everyone they seek to represent, which by sheer math dilutes their own stakes in the outcome. And because most named plaintiffs do not have the skills or experience to fulfill their representative function on their own, they usually delegate the responsibility to class counsel, thus further diminishing their own participation in the settlement process. For this reason, named plaintiffs most often are not needed at, and do not attend, class action mediations. Rather, their lawyers will drive the negotiations, and will only need to ask their blessing for the outcome they have achieved. (I have had cases where a named plaintiff refuses to give that blessing and becomes an objector to a proposed settlement, but that is a topic for another day.) 2. Settlement Class Members. On the plaintiffs' side, the members of the settlement class have the greatest stake in the outcome of the class action and the class action settlement, but because they do not participate directly in either the litigation or the settlement negotiations (and often don't even know that there is a lawsuit at the time a settlement is being negotiated) the protection of their interests depends on the work and judgment of others. Class members' interests generally fall into two categories: procedural and substantive, both of which are addressed in federal cases in Rule 23(e). Put simply, class members' procedural interest is to receive adequate notice and opportunities to opt out of or object to any settlement that they don't like. Their substantive interest is that any binding resolution of their claims be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Both class counsel and the court are responsible for protecting the class members' interests in the settlement process. In class mediations and at settlement approval hearings, the settlement class, though silent and unseen, is a powerful force that drives the decisions about both the procedural and substantive terms of settlement. 3. Class Counsel. Though subordinate to the interests of the named plaintiff and the settlement class members, class counsel also have a significant stake in the settlement -- namely, the approval and payment of attorneys' fees and costs. Payment of a reasonable attorneys' fee to class counsel aligns with the interests of the class, because the fee serves to incentivize counsel to prosecute class members' claims. Payment of an excessive fee, on the other hand, conflicts with class members' interests, as any excess funds presumably could have been made available to the settling class. Because of this potential conflict, federal and state rules require judicial approval not only of the fairness of the relief provided to a class in a class action settlement, but also of the amount of fees to be paid to class counsel. 4. Defendants. Defendants' interests in class action settlement generally boil down to two things: settling at a reasonable cost and achieving global peace. Determining a reasonable cost depends on a number of factors, including the probable outcomes of the litigation if the case does not settle, the reputational risks associated with either settlement or litigation, the costs of compliance with any injunctive relief that may be awarded or agreed-to, and the likely net cost of implementing the settlement (including, for example, anticipated claims rates in a claims-made settlement). Once a defendant determines how much it is willing to pay to settle, the defendant generally doesn't care how the funds are allocated as between the named plaintiff, the class, and class counsel, except to the extent that the allocation may affect the likelihood of settlement approval. (The defendant may, however, care about how the relief to the class is allocated among various components of liability if such allocation carries tax implications.) As for global peace, the last thing any defendant wants is to settle one case only to find itself facing another class action raising the same or related claims. Defendants seeking to avoid that risk will focus on two elements of the proposed settlement -- the class definition and the release -- to make sure the former encompasses the broadest intended class, and that the latter provides as much protection from future lawsuits as a court is likely to approve. 5. The Court. The primary role of the court is to ensure the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the class action settlement, including the reasonableness of awards of attorneys' fees and costs, and that the procedural rules and principles of due process are adhered to. Nevertheless, the court also has its own important institutional interests that may come into play, including its interest in managing its docket and in maintaining its reputation for fairness, reasonableness, and impartiality. The courts' interests are typically not a focus of class action mediations, especially those conducted by private mediators, but they can influence judicial decision-making when the court decides whether to approve a proposed settlement. 6. The Public. Settlements of some cases may implicate the public interest. For example, if a product defect creates a risk of future harm to the general public, the public may have an interest in the scope and nature of any injunctive relief included in, or omitted from, the settlement. Counsel for both sides should take the public interest into account when negotiating settlements in such cases, and courts should be attuned to any material risks to the public that a class action settlement may likely pose. [GN] [*] Stikeman Elliott Discusses Ontario Class Action Regime Changes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Katherine Kay, Esq.--kkay@stikeman.com--of Stikeman Elliott LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on July 8, 2020, Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020, received Royal Assent. As discussed previously, Bill 161 makes a number of amendments to Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1992(CPA), including the introduction of a more rigorous certification test, improved coordination of multi-jurisdictional class actions, a mechanism to dismiss dormant proceedings, and other procedural changes. Significant changes in Bill 161 to the Ontario class actions regime are described below. A More Rigorous Certification Test The amendments include a new subsection 5(1.1) that creates a more detailed and onerous standard for satisfying the "preferable procedure" prong of the certification test: 5(1.1) A class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the resolution of common issues under clause (1)(d) only if, at a minimum, a) it is superior to all reasonably available means of determining the entitlement of the class members to relief or addressing the impugned conduct of the defendant, including, as applicable, a quasi-judicial or administrative proceeding, the case management of individual claims in a civil proceeding, or any remedial scheme or program outside of a proceeding; and b) the questions of fact or law common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. As a result of this amendment, a plaintiff will now have to satisfy the court that its proposed class proceeding is the "superior method" for resolving class members' entitlement to relief or for addressing the impugned conduct of the defendant. Meanwhile, the predominance element requires the court to assess the extent to which the resolution of the common issues actually advances the resolution of the overall action when compared to the individual issues remaining to be determined. The addition of the superiority and predominance requirements aligns Ontario's certification test more closely with the federal certification test in the United States and creates a more rigorous certification test in Ontario. Coordination of Multi-Jurisdictional Proceedings Bill 161 introduces provisions for the coordination of multi-jurisdictional class proceedings, which are defined as proceedings brought on behalf of residents of two or more Canadian provinces or territories involving the same or similar subject matter. Where a proposed class proceeding brought on behalf of a multi-jurisdictional class is commenced outside Ontario involving the same or similar subject matter and some (or all) of the same class members as an Ontario proceeding, Bill 161 requires the court to determine whether it would be preferable for some (or all) of the claims of the Ontario class members in the Ontario proceeding to be resolved in the other jurisdiction. The legislation provides an extensive list of factors for the court to consider in making this determination, including: -- the alleged basis of liability in each of the proceedings, and any differences in the laws of each applicable jurisdiction respecting such liability and any available relief; -- the stage each proceeding has reached; -- the plan required to be produced for the purpose of each proceeding, including the viability of the plan and the available capacity and resources for advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class; -- the location of class members and representative plaintiffs in each proceeding, including the ability of a representative plaintiff to participate in a proceeding and to represent the interests of class members; -- the location of evidence and witnesses; and -- the ease of enforceability in each applicable jurisdiction. The court may refuse to certify a multi-jurisdictional proceeding if it is preferable that the matter proceed in another jurisdiction. The CPA amendments also permit a party to seek a stay of an Ontario proceeding prior to certification where there is an overlapping class action in another province. These amendments bring Ontario's legislation in line with other Canadian provinces, such as Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, where similar provisions to address multi-jurisdictional class actions have been in force for some time. Mandatory Dismissal for Delay In response to long-standing concerns about proceedings that are commenced and then remain dormant, Bill 161 has introduced a mandatory dismissal for delay provision. Pursuant to the new provision, the court is required, on motion, to dismiss a class proceeding commenced in Ontario unless at least one of the following steps has been taken within one year of commencement: -- the filing of a final and complete certification motion record by the representative plaintiff; -- the parties have agreed in writing to a timetable for service of the representative plaintiff's certification motion record, or for completion of one or more other steps required to advance the proceeding, and have filed the timetable with the court; -- there is an order of the court that the proceeding not be dismissed and a timetable for service of the representative plaintiff's certification motion record or for the completion of one or more other steps required to advance the proceeding; or -- any other steps, occurrences or circumstances that may be specified by regulation. Notable Procedural Changes Bill 161 contains other significant procedural changes to the CPA, including: Early Resolution: The court is mandated to hear dispositive motions and motions that may narrow the issues to be determined in advance of the motion for certification (unless it orders that the motion be heard in conjunction with the certification motion). Appeal Routes: Either party is allowed to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal from an order certifying, refusing to certify, or decertifying a proceeding as a class proceeding. This reform eliminates the prior asymmetry where plaintiffs had an automatic right of appeal while defendants were required to seek leave, as well as eliminating the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court as an intermediate appellate court in class actions. Carriage Motions: Where multiple counsel file similar claims in Ontario courts, a motion to determine which counsel has "carriage" of the case must be brought within 60 days of the commencement of the first action, with the decision of the court being final and not subject to appeal. Similar claims that are commenced more than 60 days after the first action has been commenced will be barred. Class counsel may not seek to recover the costs of the carriage motion from either the class or the defendants. Third-Party Funding: Third party arrangements will be allowed, subject to court approval (and unenforceable in the absence of such approval). Motions for approval, on notice to defendants, must be made as soon as practicably possible after the agreement is entered into and a copy of the agreement must be provided to the defendants. Information that may be reasonably considered to confer a tactical advantage on the defendant may be redacted, although the motion judge must receive a complete and unredacted third-party agreement, which shall not form part of the court file. Costs of Certification Notice: Costs of a notice of certification may be awarded to a representative plaintiff only upon success in the class proceeding, except to the extent the defendant consents to their payment in whole or in part at an earlier time. Settlement Approval: The party seeking approval must make full disclosure of all material facts and file an affidavit detailing the method used for valuing the settlement, the plan for allocating and distributing settlement funds and evidence as to how the settlement is fair and in the best interests of the class (among other things). Application of the CPA Amendments The CPA amendments contained in Bill 161 will come into force and effect on a date to be determined by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. Pursuant to the transition provisions, the amendments will apply only to proceedings commenced after the amendments come into force, with the exception of the dismissal for delay provisions, which will apply to existing proceedings, but only from the day that the amendments come into force. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***