/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 ***