/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200901.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, September 1, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 175
Headlines
2U INC: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Consolidated Suit Due Sept. 29
AARGON COLLECTION: Muldowney Alleges Violation under FDCPA
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Continues to Defend Flaccus Class Action
AMP: Shine Lawyers Launch Insurance Class Action
AMPIO PHARMA: Says Shi Class Action Now Concluded
APFELBAUM PHILATELISTS: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
ARCH INSURANCE: Davis Fitness Studio Files Suit in New Jersey
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. Golden Peanut
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Class Period in Shareholder Suit Expanded
AS SEEN ON TV: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Class Suit Ongoing
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Davies Ward Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
ATLANTIC UNION: Hinton Files Breach of Contract Suit in Virginia
AVANGRID INC: Suit by PNE Energy Supply Ongoing
BAYER AG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Early 2021 Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Langley Complaint
BP WEST: AG Says Class Action Settlement Checks Are Not Scam
CAPIO PARTNERS: Chehova Files FDCPA Suit in New York
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit Pending
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook's IPO Suit Still Pending
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
CBOE GLOBAL: Appeal in VIX-Related Class Suit Underway
CBOE GLOBAL: Bats Global Still Defends Providence Securities Suit
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
CHERRYSTONE STAMP: Faces Calcano ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Covatto Files Suit in Pennsylvania
CIT GROUP: $9.25M Accord in Foreclosures Class Suit Wins Final OK
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
COT'N WASH: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
CROOKED MEDIA: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
DACM DIGITAL LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges Violation under ADA
DAIRYAMERICA INC: 9th Cir. Tosses Appeal vs. $40MM Deal in Carlin
DR. SQUATCH: Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges Violation under ADA
DRIZLY LLC: Birdoes Files Breach of Contract Suit in D. Arizona
EAGLE POINTE: Cooper Suit Transferred to E.D. Wash.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
ENERGY RECOVERY: Facing Visser Securities Class Suit in New York
EPIQ SYSTEMS: California Resident Files CCPA Class Action
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Securities Suit Pending
ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Beltz"
EXACT SCIENCES: Genomic Defends Flannery Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: $650MM Accord Reached in Biometrics Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Reached in Cyber-Attack Class Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Ongoing
FLOOR & DECOR: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Georgia Pending
FLORIDA TECH: Hedges Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
FRANKLIN SPORTS: Paguada ADA Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Singh TCPA Class Suit in E.D. California
FRONTLINE ASSET: Gibson Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois
GENERAL MOTORS: Dec. Final Hearing on Economic-Loss Case Accord
HERRICK STAMP: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
HOMESUBLIME LLC: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
IBM CORP: Fessler's Counsel Comments on Class Action
IDEANOMICS INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
IRVING N. MOTOR CO: Gilmore Files Suit Under TCPA in Texas
JAMESTOWN STAMP: Calcano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: Student Files Class Suit Over Tuition, Fees
KIRKLAND LAKE: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
KRAFT HEINZ: Hollywood Police and Union Asset Suits Consolidated
KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne Suit v. Employee Benefits Board Ongoing
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Davis & Vargas Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Bermejo Class Suit
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Defends Cobb & Joseph Class Suits
LIGHTING BY JARED: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends Hanks Class Suit vs. Unit, Voya
MACROGENICS INC: CPERS, Scott+Scott to Lead Securities Suit
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Defendants Want 2nd Amended Securities Suit Tossed
MAMMOTH ENERGY: LeJeune's Conditional Class Status Bid Pending
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Class Suit Underway in Puerto Rico
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Williams Class Suit Against Unit Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: Damage Class Settlement Approval Order Appealed
MDL 2492: Franklin Suit Transferred to Illinois
MET-RX SUBSTRATE: Paguada Files Class ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Brantley Files FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Indiana
MILLIMAN INC: Iwanski Suit Moved From New York to Pennsylvania
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing
MORGAN STANLEY: Shapouri Files Suit in New York
NOMAD GROUP: Sued by Tran for Not Paying Complete Overtime Wages
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Veeravalli Sues to Seek Return of Fees
O&L LAW GROUP: Longden Files Suit Under FDCPA
OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Still Ongoing
OMNICELL INC: Hearing Wednesday on Bid to Dismiss Heard Suit
OPKO HEALTH: $16.5 Million Settlement Reached in Florida Suit
ORION GROUP: Dismissal in Houston Securities Suit Now Final
PBF ENERGY: Kendig Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
PBF ENERGY: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 2021
PG&E CORP: Appeal in Order of Dismissal in PSPS Suit Ongoing
PROSHARES TRUST II: Named as Defendant in Di Scala Suit
PROTARA THERAPEUTICS: Plumley Class Suit Dismissed
RESTORBIO INC: Defends Adicet Merger-Related Suits
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in Deka Suit
SPERIAN ENERGY: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Corsale Breach Suit
SPRINGS WINDOW: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
SVENSK MANAGEMENT: Wallen Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TASC PERFORMANCE: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Securities Class Suit
TEREX CORP: Settlement Reached in Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Suit
TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Treasuries Securities Suits Pending
TRANS WORLD: $425,000 Reserved in Spack Settlement
TRIANGLE HOME: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
TWININGS NORTH: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Beef Buyers' Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Wage-Fixing Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Underway in Oklahoma
TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit
TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Alleged Price-Fixing of Pork Ongoing
TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Illinois Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
TYSON FOODS: Turkey Purchasers' Class Suits Ongoing
UNITED STATES: IRS Sued Over CARES Economic Assistance Payments
URTHBOX INC: Martinez Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit Over Clairton Fire
US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Class Suit
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California
VIEWRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending
VISA INC: Summary Judgment Bids Filed in Injunctive Relief Class
VITA-MIX: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
WEBELLENT LLC: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suit to Begin June 2021
WPX ENERGY: Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit Ongoing in Wisconsin
XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Labul Class Suit Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing
XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Ongoing
ZENDESK INC: Lead Plaintiff Balks at Dismissal Bid
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Says Evans Suit in Post-Pleading Phase
ZOVIO INC: Bid to Dismiss Stein Securities Class Suit Granted
[*] China Allows Small Investors to File Class Actions
[*] Insurance Industry Calls for Reform of Class Action Laws
*********
2U INC: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Consolidated Suit Due Sept. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
2U, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020,
that defendants have until September 29, 2020, to file a motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland.
On August 7 and 9, 2019, Aaron Harper and Anne M. Chinn filed
putative class action complaints against the company, Christopher
J. Paucek, its CEO, and Catherine A. Graham, the company's former
CFO, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based upon
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business prospects and financial projections.
The district court transferred the cases to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, consolidated them
under docket number 8:19-cv-3455 (D. Md.), and appointed Fiyyaz
Pirani as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.
On July 30, 2020, Mr. Pirani filed a consolidated class action
complaint ("CAC"), adding Harsha Mokkarala, the company's former
Chief Marketing Officer, as a defendant. The CAC also asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(A)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act,
against Mr. Paucek, Ms. Graham, members of the company's Board of
Directors, and its underwriters, based on allegations related to
the company's secondary stock offering on May 23, 2018.
The proposed class consists of all persons who acquired our
company's securities between February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019.
The deadline for the defendants to file a motion to dismiss is
September 29, 2020.
2U said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and we
intend to vigorously defend against these claims. However, due to
the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, the
outcome of this matter is not presently determinable."
Headquartered in Landover, Maryland, 2U, Inc. provides cloud-based
SaaS solutions that address the needs of nonprofit colleges and
universities to attract, enroll and deliver quality education to
students. The 2U platform enables clients to offer full
undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs online.
AARGON COLLECTION: Muldowney Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aargon Collection
Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Muldowney, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aargon
Collection Agency, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00950-LEK-TWD
(N.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Aargon Agency, Inc. provides mercantile and consumer credit
reporting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza-Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Continues to Defend Flaccus Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend
the Flaccus class suit in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in various class action suits. Past suits have alleged
the Company charged improper charges (fuel, administrative and
environmental charges) that were in breach of the Company's service
agreements.
The Company reached a settlement for $9.0 (inclusive of plaintiff
attorneys' fees and costs), resolving four of these cases in fiscal
2019.
One of these cases (the "Flaccus" suit) has not been settled and is
still pending.
Advanced Disposal said, "Given the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, including the early stage of the Flaccus case, the
unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues
in dispute, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted and a
range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. provides non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The company
was formerly known as ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. and changed its name
to Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. in January 2016. Advanced
Disposal Services, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Ponte Vedra, Florida.
AMP: Shine Lawyers Launch Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Rod Myer, writing for The New Daily, reports that Shine Lawyers
have launched a class action on behalf of superannuation fund
members that is targeting as much as $500 million in overpayments
for insurance.
The plaintiff law firm has lodged a statement of claim in the name
of two members against AMP and expects to do the same with
Westpac-owned wealth manager BT and Commonwealth Bank (CBA) in
coming weeks.
"We've got good evidence using modelling that shows the overcharges
exceeded $500 million in total," Shine's class action leader Craig
Allsopp told The New Daily.
Shine alleges that the three banks signed up members of their
superannuation funds to insurance policies that were significantly
more expensive than policies available elsewhere.
"They involved vertical integration and the selling of in-house
products that were more expensive than other available products,"
Mr Allsopp said.
In the case of BT, Shine will contend that the trustees of its
super fund chose to make the in-house product the default option,
despite cheaper options being available, Mr Allsopp said.
As for the other financial service providers, "advisers were
conscripted" to deliver the same result, he said.
"In the case of BT, policy costs were on average 10 to 30 per cent
more expensive, for CBA it's around 20 per cent, and for AMP around
30 per cent, but for some members policy costs might have been
double," Mr Allsopp said.
"It all comes down to a breach of the duty to act in the best
interests of fund members."
Unfair and illegal
"We argue that all three financial service providers behaved in a
way that was unfair and illegal," Mr Allsopp said.
"The sheer number of people affected by these premium rorts shows
we're not just talking about a few bad apples but systemic
misconduct in the industry."
The ultimate size of the class action will depend on the number of
people who sign up to it.
The process of bringing in potential members will likely start when
a court order for Shine to contact all current and past members
likely to have been overcharged is received.
Shine commenced a similar case against Westpac in 2017, which Mr
Allsopp said "has been hard fought".
"It's been up to the High Court once but is yet to be resolved," he
said.
Shine's move came out of the Hayne royal commission into financial
services, which highlighted the dangers of conflicted advice.
"Every incidence of misconduct from that area came from those
providing advice receiving commissions," Mr Allsopp said.
Super Consumers Australia director Xavier O'Halloran said consumers
worried about fees inside their super funds should follow a
rational course of action.
"People should first go to their super fund and if they need to
take things further there is the Australian Financial Complaints
Authority," he said.
"If after that you do decide to join a class action you need to be
aware of any costs that are associated with it as they will affect
the amount gained if the action is successful."
Who pays the piper?
The Shine action is to be funded by UK based litigation funders
Woodsford, which might receive a quarter of any award if the action
is successful.
"Until recently, litigation funders have received between 20 per
cent and 30 per cent of the proceeds from successful actions," Mr
Allsopp said.
"I'm worried that the recent High Court decision on litigation
funding will see those figures creep up," he said.
However, costs in this case were likely to be about 25 per cent of
any award, he said.
Litigation funders take on the risk of class actions by funding the
legal and other costs, while firms like Shine also take a small
amount of risk.
Those with a case sign up to the action and do not have to pay for
legal costs if the case loses.
However, the litigation funders' fee comes from their payout.
The High Court decision in December is expected to make class
actions more difficult and expensive.
Recently, a class action against NAB carried out by lawyers Slater
and Gordon over the selling of junk insurance in super funds was
settled for $49.5 million.
The largest Australian class action on record saw 10,000 people
awarded $500 million in 2014 over bushfires started by SP Ausnet's
power infrastructure. [GN]
AMPIO PHARMA: Says Shi Class Action Now Concluded
-------------------------------------------------
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled,
Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-07476,
has been concluded.
On August 25, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company
commenced a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned
Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-07476.
Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleged that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting material
information regarding the AP-003 Phase III clinical trial of
Ampion.
The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 14, 2017
through August 7, 2018.
Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action sought unspecified
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
On September 27, 2019, the Court presiding over the Securities
Class Action issued an order appointing a Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in late 2019.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 10, 2020. On March 26, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a brief
in opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company filed
a reply to the Plaintiff's brief in opposition on April 27, 2020.
On June 19, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
and dismissed the Securities Class Action with prejudice. Plaintiff
did not file a notice of appeal, and the case is now concluded.
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development of therapies for the treatment of prevalent
inflammatory conditions in the United States. The company is
developing compounds that decrease inflammation by inhibiting
specific pro-inflammatory compounds. Its product pipeline includes
Ampion, an intra-articular injection for the treatment of
osteoarthritis of the knee. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is
headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.
APFELBAUM PHILATELISTS: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apfelbaum Philatelists, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Apfelbaum Philatelists, Inc.,
Apfelbaum Auctioneers, Inc. and Apfelbaum, Earl P. L. Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06875 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 25, 2020).
Apfelbaum, Inc. sells a variety of valuable stamps for philatelic
collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
ARCH INSURANCE: Davis Fitness Studio Files Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arch Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Davis Fitness Studio One LLC d/b/a
Club Pilates Marlboro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arch Insurance Company, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-10812 (D. N.J., Aug. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance
seeking Declaratory Judgment.
Arch Insurance Company offers property, casualty, and specialty
insurance for corporations, professional firms, and financial
institutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly Magnus Purcaro
A.Y. Strauss
101 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 412
Roseland, NJ 07068
Tel: (973) 287-5008
Fax: (973) 226-4104
Email: kpurcaro@aystrauss.com
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. Golden Peanut
------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the
putative class action suit against Golden Peanut.
On September 5, 2019, D&M Farms, Mark Hasty, and Dustin Land filed
a putative class action on behalf of a purported class of peanut
farmers under the U.S. federal antitrust laws in federal court in
Norfolk, Virginia, alleging that the Company's subsidiary, Golden
Peanut, and another peanut shelling company, conspired to fix the
price they paid to farmers for raw peanuts.
In May 2020, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and
the parties are engaged in discovery. The Company denies liability
and is vigorously defending itself, in this action.
Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As this action is in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Class Period in Shareholder Suit Expanded
-------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the lead plaintiff in the putative
shareholder class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California has filed an amended
complaint asserting similar violations and expanding the alleged
class period to cover alleged false and/or misleading statements or
omissions made between March 6, 2018 and March 3, 2020.
On November 15, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading
statements or omissions made between March 6, 2018 and November 4,
2019.
On March 2, 2020, the court issued an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.
On July 2, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting similar violations and expanding the alleged class period
to cover alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions
made between March 6, 2018 and March 3, 2020.
Armstrong said, "We cannot predict the duration or outcome of this
suit at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter."
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. is a leading global producer of resilient
flooring products for use primarily in the construction and
renovation of commercial, residential and institutional buildings.
The company is based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
AS SEEN ON TV: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against As Seen on TV DE,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. As Seen on TV DE, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06666 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
As Seen On TV is a generic nameplate for products advertised on
television in the United States for direct-response mail-order
through a toll-free telephone number.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that Remington Lodging & Hospitality,
LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Pedro Membrives.
On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit
against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality,
LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr.,
Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related
entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County,
Commercial Division.
On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero
as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a
defendant.
The lawsuit is captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HHC TRS
FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington
Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index
No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty.).
The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the
Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly
retaining service charges rather than distributing them to
employees. In 2017, the class was certified.
On July 24, 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment on liability. The defendants appealed the
summary judgment to the New York State Appellate Division, Second
Department (the “Second Department”), and the appeal is still
pending. By Order dated May 7, 2020, the Second Department referred
the matter for mandatory mediation.
The parties participated in mediation on June 22, 2020, however,
they were not able to arrive at mutually acceptable settlement
terms.
Notwithstanding the pending appeal on the summary judgment issue,
the trial court continued the litigation with respect to the
plaintiffs' alleged damages. The plaintiffs filed an application
for damages on August 28, 2019. The defendants filed their
opposition to the plaintiffs' application for damages on October
11, 2019. The plaintiffs filed their reply on October 25, 2019.
The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs'
claims and the Company does not believe that an unfavorable outcome
is probable. If, however, the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on liability is upheld and the Company is unsuccessful in
any further appeals, the Company estimates that damages could range
between approximately $5.8 million and $11.9 million plus
attorneys' fees.
As of June 30, 2020, no amounts have been accrued.
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on
investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that
have a revenue per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than
two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in Dalas,
Texas.
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Davies Ward Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
A. Gerold Goldlist, Esq. -- ggoldlist@dwpv.com -- Michael Disney,
Esq. -- mdisney@dwpv.com -- Matthew Milne-Smith, Esq. --
mmilne-smith@dwpv.com -- and John McCamus, Esq., of Davies Ward
Phillips & Vineberg, in an article for Mondaq, report that in
Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v Babstock, 2020 SCC 19 (Babstock), the
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) clarifies the contentious doctrine of
"waiver of tort" and provides helpful guidance on the way courts
should assess novel claims at the stage of certification of a
proposed class proceeding or on a motion to strike a statement of
claim.
Key Takeaways
* "Waiver of tort" or "disgorgement for wrongdoing" as an
independent cause of action. Disgorgement for wrongdoing is a claim
for all the profits made by the defendant as a result of its
wrongful conduct. By finding that disgorgement for wrongdoing is
not an independent cause of action, the SCC requires plaintiffs
claiming a disgorgement remedy for negligence to plead that they
have suffered actual loss or injury caused by the defendant.
* Implications for novel claims asserted in class actions. The
SCC decision in Babstock reminds certification judges that legal
disputes should be resolved promptly, in a manner that promotes
judicial economy, which is one of the principal goals of class
actions. Unless a novel cause of action pleaded by a class action
plaintiff is an incremental development in the law that would have
a reasonable prospect of success, it should be struck at the
certification stage, not "kicked down the road" to a full trial on
the merits.
* Disgorgement as a remedy for breach of contract. The majority
of the SCC in Babstock holds that disgorgement is available as a
remedy for breach of contract only if no other available remedies
are adequate.
* Criminal Code prohibitions should be interpreted narrowly. The
SCC unanimously dismissed a claim that video lottery terminals are
an unlawful form of "three-card monte," which is prohibited under
the Criminal Code.
Davies Ward Phillips and Vineberg LLP acted for an intervener, the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and assisted counsel for the
appellant Atlantic Lottery Corporation (ALC). Davies has extensive
experience both in class actions and in advising provincial lottery
corporations across the country.
Background
Atlantic Lottery Corporation conducts and manages lottery schemes
on behalf of the governments of the four Atlantic provinces. The
plaintiffs applied for certification of a class action against ALC,
on behalf of all Newfoundland-resident players of video lottery
terminal games (VLTs) in the six years preceding the class action.
The plaintiffs claimed that VLTs were inherently dangerous and
deceptive. Recognizing that they would be unlikely to establish on
a class-wide basis that class members had suffered actual losses,
the plaintiffs sought a gain-based remedy, quantified by the profit
ALC earned from the operation of the VLTs. The plaintiffs were
successful before the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal.
The central issue in this appeal was whether the plaintiffs' claim
disclosed a reasonable cause of action. In addition to pleading
conventional claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment,
the plaintiffs relied on a cause of action, frequently called
"waiver of tort" (a term the SCC rejected in favour of
"disgorgement for wrongdoing"), and argued that such a claim should
be available for negligent wrongdoing, even where the plaintiffs
chose not to plead actual harm resulting from the defendants'
negligent conduct.
Decision
In a 5-4 split decision, Justice Brown's majority decision allowed
the defendants' appeal, set aside the certification order and
struck all of the plaintiffs' claims against ALC. The dissent
agreed with the majority's dismissal of the claim of disgorgement
for wrongdoing as an independent cause of action, but would have
allowed a claim for breach of contract to proceed to trial.
The SCC's decision has significant implications for class actions
and the law of restitution in Canada.
Implications for Novel Claims Asserted in Class Actions
In class actions, cases pleading novel causes of action have
assumed outsized prominence because of courts' reluctance to
dismiss such claims at the stage of class certification. For 16
years since Serhan (Estate Trustee) v Johnson & Johnson,1 claims
for disgorgement of profits from negligent wrongdoing, without
proof of damage to the plaintiffs, have commonly been certified,
and the issue of whether such a claim exists under Canadian law
left for trial. Certification of such claims puts significant
pressure on defendants to settle even unmeritorious claims because
of the existential risk posed by an award of damages at trial in
large class actions.
The SCC's decision in Babstock reminds certification judges that in
appropriate circumstances, legal disputes should be resolved
promptly, instead of giving the plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt
and deferring issues to a trial on the merits. A class action
should not be certified simply because it asserts a novel claim. As
stated by Justice Brown writing for the majority, "It is
beneficial, and indeed critical to the viability of civil justice
and public access thereto that claims, including novel claims,
which are doomed to fail be disposed of at an early stage in the
proceedings."
The Babstock decision means that pleading novel causes of action,
such as waiver of tort or disgorgement for wrongdoing, will be less
effective for class action plaintiffs as a path to certification
and inducing defendants to settle. If a novel cause of action is
pleaded, it must be an incremental development in the law and will
not proceed if there is no reasonable prospect that it will
succeed.
Implications for Waiver of Tort and Disgorgement for Negligence
The SCC unanimously laid to rest the term "waiver of tort,"
declaring that it is apt to generate confusion for both judges and
litigants. Instead, the SCC adopted the term "disgorgement for
wrongdoing" as the proper term for referring to this type of
claim.
The SCC also unanimously decided that disgorgement should be viewed
as an alternative remedy for certain forms of wrongful conduct, not
an independent cause of action. Therefore, in order to make a claim
for disgorgement, a plaintiff in a negligence claim must plead
facts, that if taken to be true, would satisfy all the essential
elements of the tort. This would require pleading that a loss or
injury occurred and was caused by the defendants' negligence. As
the plaintiffs in Babstock failed to plead facts that would
establish actual damages and causation, their claim for negligence
was doomed to fail.
Disgorgement continues to be available for some forms of wrongdoing
that do not require proof of damage, such as breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of confidence or trespass. The availability of
disgorgement as an alternative remedy to damages for negligence
where a loss has occurred remains an unsettled issue that has yet
to be decided in the appropriate case.
Implications for Disgorgement as a Remedy for Breach of Contract
The SCC was divided on whether the plaintiffs' claim for breach of
contract had a reasonable prospect of success that would justify
its certification as a class action.
Breach of contract, unlike the tort of negligence, does not require
proof of loss as an element of the cause of action. However, the
majority SCC judgment found that whether the plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action should be
considered in light of the remedies the plaintiffs were actually
seeking. As the plaintiffs in Babstock were seeking only
non-compensatory remedies for breach of contract - namely,
disgorgement and punitive damages, the majority framed the issue as
whether these exceptional remedies would be available to the
plaintiffs, assuming the truth of their pleadings.
Courts have accepted that disgorgement may be available for breach
of contract in exceptional circumstances. In the leading English
case of Attorney General v Blake,2 the defendant Blake was a former
MI-6 agent convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, who
subsequently entered into a contract to publish his memoirs in
contravention of the confidentiality undertaking in his employment
agreement with MI-6. As the information in his memoirs was no
longer confidential and was not damaging to the public interest,
the plaintiff suffered no damages as a result of the publication.
Instead the plaintiff sought disgorgement for the profits that
Blake made through the breach of contract. The House of Lords held
that disgorgement for breach of contract may be appropriate in
exceptional circumstances, but only where, at a minimum, the
remedies of damages, specific performance and injunction were
inadequate. As to those circumstances, courts should in particular
consider whether the plaintiff had a legitimate interest in
preventing the defendant's profit-making activity. Some Canadian
courts have adopted the reasoning from Blake in appropriate cases.
In Babstock, the SCC majority judgment adopted the "exceptional
circumstances" standard from Blake and held that disgorgement
awards are not generally available for breach of contract.
Furthermore, a gain-based remedy was not appropriate in this case,
as the plaintiffs' gambling losses were readily quantifiable and
could have been remedied through an award of compensatory damages.
It followed that the plaintiffs' claim for a disgorgement remedy
for breach of contract had no reasonable chance of success and
therefore should not be certified as a class action.
The dissenting SCC judges would have held that the plaintiffs'
claim for breach of contract should proceed. In their opinion,
declaratory relief, nominal damages, disgorgement and punitive
damages were all potential remedies for breach of contract. Justice
Karakatsanis writing for the dissent, stated "In my view, there is
a basis for an action for breach of contract and a basis to obtain
remedies against ALC even in the absence of pleadings of specific
personal loss."
Implications for the Legality of VLTs
The plaintiffs in Babstock alleged that VLTs were so inherently
deceptive that they should be considered a game "similar to"
three-card monte within the meaning of section 206 of the Criminal
Code and therefore inherently unlawful (the relevance of this was
to support the plaintiffs' claims that ALC had breached the
standard of care in negligence and had also breached an implied
contractual term to provide safe and lawful games). The case
therefore had important implications for provincial lottery
corporations across Canada, many of which offer VLTs or slot
machines with similar features to those offered by ALC (the VLT
suppliers were also defendants in Babstock).
The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments and confirmed that
VLTs could not be considered "similar to" three-card monte under
the Criminal Code. Courts ought to interpret the Criminal Code
narrowly, so as to avoid broadening the scope of the criminal law
on a discretionary basis and potentially creating common law
crimes. Applying this approach, the Court concluded that the
prohibition on three-card monte or "similar" games applied only to
games that involved, at a minimum, "a player betting on the
location of an object after a series of manipulations." A mere
allegation that a game was deceptive or misleading could not
suffice. [GN]
ATLANTIC UNION: Hinton Files Breach of Contract Suit in Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Union Bank.
The case is styled as Marty Hinton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Atlantic Union Bank, Case No.
3:20-cv-00651-JAG (E.D. Va., Aug. 20, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Atlantic Union Bank offers a wide range of financial solutions,
including checking accounts, savings accounts, business loans and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Thomas Fennell, Esq.
P.O. Box 12325
Roanoke, VA 24024
Phone: (540) 339-3889
Fax: (540) 339-3880
Email: patrick@fmtrials.com
- and -
Christopher Duran Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM PLLC
610 President Clinton Ave., Ste. 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 777-7777
Fax: (888) 505-0909
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
- and -
James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 255-5419
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Fax: (202) 871-8180
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Lynn Antoinette Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alan Durrum Wingfield, Esq.
Brooke Kelley Conkle, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
1001 Haxall Point, Suite 1500
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 697-1200
Email: alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com
brooke.conkle@troutmansanders.com
AVANGRID INC: Suit by PNE Energy Supply Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, PNE Energy Supply LLC v. Eversource Energy and
Avangrid, Inc.
On August 10, 2018, PNE Energy Supply LLC, a competitive energy
supplier located in New England that purchases electricity in the
day-ahead and real time wholesale electric market, filed a civil
antitrust action, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated,
against the Company and Eversource alleging that their respective
gas subsidiaries illegally manipulated the supply of pipeline
capacity in the "secondary capacity market" in order to
artificially inflate New England natural gas and electricity
prices. These allegations were also based on the conclusions of the
whitepaper issued by EDF.
The plaintiff claims to represent entities who purchased
electricity directly in the wholesale electricity market that it
claims was targeted by the alleged anticompetitive conduct of
Eversource and the Company.
On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff inquiry and the
dismissal of the related case, "Breiding et al. v. Eversource and
Avangrid," by the same court in September.
The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on October
26, 2018 and the Company filed a reply on November 15, 2018. The
district court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on
January 18, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the Company filed a brief in
support of its motion to dismiss, and on June 7, 2019, the district
court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all
claims.
On July 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, on October 18, 2019,
filed a brief in support of appeal.
On January 2, 2020, the Company and Eversource filed a joint motion
in opposition and on January 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a reply
brief.
On April 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
canceled oral arguments of the appeal and ordered the case to be
decided on the briefs without oral argument.
Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class action
lawsuit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.
BAYER AG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 3 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.
WFC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=8319&wire=1
CSPR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/casper-sleep-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8319&wire=1
BAYRY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8319&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
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=8319&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.
Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE:CSPR)
in or traceable to the Company's public offering conducted on or
around February 7, 2020.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 18, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/casper-sleep-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8319&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (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 documents issued in connection with
Casper's initial public offering, 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.
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.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8319&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, 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.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Early 2021 Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the class action suit initiated by
Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger has been set for trial in early
2021.
On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the Company,
Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and Boardwalk
Pipelines Holding Corp. (BPHC) (together, Defendants), regarding
the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the
issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already
owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase Right).
On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement).
Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be
dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be
released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general
partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise
its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the
Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and
gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement.
On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.
On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement.
On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class action complaint
was filed in this proceeding. The Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which was heard by the Court in July 2019.
In October 2019, the Court ruled on the motion and granted a
partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to
trial.
The case has been set for trial in early 2021.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the
Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Langley Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court overseeing the
case, Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., has dismissed
the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice.
On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017.
On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate
to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation.
The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.
The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit.
Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February
8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.
Booz Allen said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not
able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or
any loss associated with the lawsuit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and
technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission
operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and
not for-profit organizations in the United States and
internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was
founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
BP WEST: AG Says Class Action Settlement Checks Are Not Scam
------------------------------------------------------------
The World reports that more than one million Oregonians will
receive settlement checks from BP West Coast Products LLC.
Eligible parties may have already received it. Over the next few
weeks, more than 1 million Oregonians who used a debit card to buy
gas at Oregon ARCO and am/pm gas stations between Jan. 1, 2011, and
Aug. 30, 2013, will receive a check in the mail for $94.42. The
nonprofit organization Oregon Consumer Justice, in partnership with
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum of the Oregon Department of
Justice, wants the public to know that the checks are not a scam.
They are a settlement from a class action lawsuit against BP.
According to OCJ, 27% of the checks from the first round of
settlement checks distributed last year were not cashed before
their expiration and the organization wants to ensure that doesn't
occur this time around. To assure recipients that the settlement
checks are valid, they have launched a public awareness campaign
and website: www.ThisCheckIsReal.org and in Spanish at
www.EsteChequeEsReal.org.
"We always encourage Oregonians to be on the look out for scams and
to know the signs that something could be a scam. But, in this
case, the checks are real, and we want Oregonians to know they are
safe to cash this check at the bank," said Oregon Attorney General
Rosenblum. "If you used a debit card at an Oregon ARCO and am/pm
gas station during this time period, you qualify for this class
action settlement. This is your money, and we hope that all
Oregonians will help us spread the word."
The mass mailing of settlement checks is the result of a class
action lawsuit known as Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products LLC.
The suit was brought against ARCO's owner BP West Coast Products,
on behalf of people who used a debit card to buy gas at Oregon ARCO
and am/pm gas stations between January 1, 2011, and August 30,
2013. In 2014, the jury and the court concluded that class members
in this case were unfairly and illegally charged a $0.35 debit card
fee in violation of Oregon regulations and the Oregon Unfair Trade
Practices Act. The jury verdict resulted in an award of damages of
$409 million.
Henry Kantor, OCJ board chair, said, "Oregon Consumer Justice was
launched as a result of this case to advance consumer rights in
Oregon through advocacy, research, education and engagement. We
felt it is important that Oregonians who have been impacted as a
result of this case know that they have a check coming to them,
understand that it is their money to keep and also have access to
cashing the check even if they don't have a bank account.
Especially in this time of community need, $94.42 can go a long
way."
For more information, visit ThisCheckisReal.org,
EsteChequeEsReal.org and debitcardclassaction.com.
Oregon residents who have information about or have fallen victim
to a scam should contact the Oregon Attorney General's Consumer
Hotline at 1-877-877-9392 or online at OregonConsumer.gov. Last
year, the Attorney General's Consumer Hotline received 36,000 phone
calls, resulting in more than 6,500 written consumer complaints
from Oregonians, and the Oregon Department of Justice may be able
to help. [GN]
CAPIO PARTNERS: Chehova Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capio Partners, LLC.
The case is styled as Joseph Chehova, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capio Partners, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03942 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Capio Partners, LLC is a debt collection agency with locations in
Lawrenceville, Georgia; Sherman, Texas; and Lake Oswego,
Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
2076 East 27 Street
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Tel: (718) 928-8872
Email: yoniw18@gmail.com
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et al., lawsuit
remains pending.
On May 29, 2019 and July 3, 2019, two putative class action
lawsuits, Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et al., were filed
in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the Company, certain of
its current and former executive officers and directors, Summit
Partners, the Company's largest investor, and the underwriters from
the Company's December 15, 2017 initial public offering (the "IPO")
(collectively, the "defendants").
These complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO.
The complaints generally allege that (i) each of the defendants
violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act"), because documents
related to the Company's IPO including its registration statement
and prospectus were materially misleading by containing untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material facts
necessary to make such statements not misleading and (ii) the
individual defendants and Summit Partners acted as controlling
persons within the meaning and in violation of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.
On August 13, 2019, the Court consolidated these actions and
referred the consolidated actions to the Business Litigation
Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court (the "BLS"). On
September 3, 2019, the BLS accepted the consolidated action into
its session for further proceedings.
On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended shareholder
class action complaint, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO, which
contains substantially similar allegations and asserts the same
claims as the two initial complaints, described above.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.
On January 14, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook's IPO Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the motion seeking to dismiss the putative
class action suit entitled, Donald Hook v. Casa Systems, Inc. et
al., is still pending.
On August 9, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, Donald Hook v.
Casa Systems, Inc. et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, against the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, Summit Partners, and
the underwriters from the initial public offering (IPO).
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO and
generally alleges that (i) each of the defendants violated Section
11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act, because documents related to the
IPO including its registration statement and prospectus were
materially misleading by containing untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to make such
statements not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants and
Summit Partners acted as controlling persons within the meaning and
in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.
On November 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock in and/or traceable to the IPO, which contains substantially
similar allegations as the initial complaint, described above, and
asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses,
including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, disgorgement, and equitable and injunctive
relief.
On January 21, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the class
action suit entitled, Panther Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al., is
pending.
On August 13, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, Panther
Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, against the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters
from the Company's April 30, 2018 follow-on offering of common
stock, (the "Follow-on Offering").
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock in the Follow-on Offering and generally
alleges that (i) each of the defendants, other than Abraham
Pucheril, violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and each of
the defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act,
because documents related to the Company's Follow-on Offering,
including its registration statement and prospectus, were
materially misleading by containing untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to make such
statements not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants acted
as controlling persons within the meaning and in violation of
Section 15 of the Securities Act.
On November 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the Follow-on Offering, which contains
substantially similar allegations and asserts the same claims as
the initial complaint, described above. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel and
expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, and
equitable and injunctive relief.
On January 21, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.
CBOE GLOBAL: Appeal in VIX-Related Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal from a ruling in the class
action suit related to the CBOE Volatility Index methodology (VIX)
is ongoing.
On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.
A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.
On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated
complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims
against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities
Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a
state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding
class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or
exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest,
costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.
On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January
28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company. The state
law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other
claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an
amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019.
On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their
response on October 8, 2019.
On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company's second motion to dismiss
and all counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.
On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the
January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal.
On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ("7th Circuit"), seeking to
appeal the April 21, 2020 order granting the entry of partial final
judgment and both orders granting the Company's motions to dismiss
entered on May 29, 2019 and January 27, 2020.
On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th
Circuit.
The Company currently believes that the claims are without merit
and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.
The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation.
Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
CBOE GLOBAL: Bats Global Still Defends Providence Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company's wholly owned subsidiary,
Bats Global Markets, Inc., now known as CBOE Bats, LLC, remains a
defendant in a securities class action lawsuit initiated by the
City of Providence, Rhode Island. The discovery period in the
matter commenced and is scheduled to continue through 2020.
On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence filed a securities class
action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Bats
and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other securities
exchanges.
The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors
who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States
since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange
("Exchange Defendants") or a U.S.-based alternate trading venue and
were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct detailed in the
complaint, which includes allegations that the Exchange Defendants
committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated
with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high
frequency trading.
On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which
were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode
Island securities class action lawsuit.
On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York held oral
argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August
26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion and Order granting
Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint in
full.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on
August 24, 2016.
Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order
requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower
Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have
immunity in the claims alleged. The SEC filed its amicus brief with
the Court of Appeals on November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the
Exchange Defendants filed their respective supplemental response
briefs on December 12, 2016.
On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower
Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On
March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange
Defendants' motion for re-hearing.
The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion
to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15,
2018 and the Exchange Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018.
On May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order
denying the Exchange Defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 17,
2019, the Exchange Defendants filed a motion seeking interlocutory
appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was denied July
16, 2019. Exchange Defendants filed their answers on July 25, 2019.
The discovery period in the matter commenced and is scheduled to
continue through 2020.
Cboe Global said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings,
the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the
claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter
vigorously."
Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Chembio Diagnostics,
Inc. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Chembio Diagnostics, Inc.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/chembio-diagnostics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8589&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020
Class Period: March 12, 2020 - June 16, 2020
According to the filed complaint, defendants engaged in a scheme to
deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially
inflated Chembio's stock price and operated as a fraud or deceit by
misrepresenting the efficacy of the Company's Dual Path Platform
("DPP") COVID-19 test. Defendants allegedly achieved this by making
false statements about Chembio's DPP COVID-19 test, although they
knew or at least recklessly disregarded that there were material
performance concerns with the test. When defendants' prior
misrepresentations were disclosed and became apparent to the
market, the price of Chembio stock fell precipitously as the prior
artificial inflation came out of Chembio's stock price.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
CHERRYSTONE STAMP: Faces Calcano ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cherrystone Stamp
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Cherrystone
Stamp Center, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06703 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cherrystone Stamp Center is a stamp dealer selling foreign stamps,
U.S. stamps, and more for stamp collections.[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
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Covatto Files Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cincinnati
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Richard A. Covatto doing
business as: Covatto Family Dentistry, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Cincinnati
Insurance Company, The Cincinnati Casualty Company and The
Cincinnati Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01238-MRH (W.D. Pa., Aug. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
over a Diversity-Insurance Contract.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company, operating since 1950, stands
among the nation's top 25 property casualty insurer groups based on
net written premiums. The group markets business, home and auto
insurance products through a select group of independent insurance
agencies in 43 states and the District of Columbia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Carlson Lynch, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue
5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
CIT GROUP: $9.25M Accord in Foreclosures Class Suit Wins Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a Hawaiian court overseeing class action
litigation over non-judicial foreclosure claims has granted final
approval to a $9.25 million settlement of the case.
Based on recent rulings of the Hawaii Supreme Court, 43 individual
lawsuits were filed against CIT in Hawaii alleging technical
violations in non-judicial foreclosures. Similar cases have been
filed against other mortgage lenders in Hawaii.
The Hawaii Supreme Court did not establish a clear methodology for
calculating alleged damages if a violation is proven and there is
substantial dispute in this regard.
In many instances the borrower had no equity in the home at the
time of foreclosure. Damages sought in these cases include any lost
equity, compensation for loss of use of the house and, in some
cases, treble or punitive damages under Hawaii's unfair practices
law.
The Company has settled all of the individual lawsuits alleging
foreclosure violations.
In addition to the individual lawsuits, plaintiffs' counsel filed
six putative class actions alleging the same foreclosure defects
violate Hawaii's unfair and deceptive acts and practices statute.
The Company was not named as a defendant in any of the class
actions, but serviced loans at the time of foreclosure on behalf of
various securitization trusts.
In November 2019, the Company signed a class settlement agreement
to resolve the claims of the putative class members in the class
actions for approximately $9.25 million.
In order to effectuate the settlement, a new class action was filed
against the Company on February 7, 2020, and concurrently
plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of
the settlement. The court granted the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement after a hearing on March 19, 2020 and
entered the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment on July 23,
2020.
Based on existing reserves, the settlement will not have a material
impact.
CIT Group Inc. operates as the holding company for CIT Bank, N.A.
that provides banking and related services to commercial and
individual customers. The company operates through Commercial
Banking and Consumer Banking segments. The Company was founded in
1908 and is based in New York, New York.
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Co-Diagnostics, Inc.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will
be no obligation or cost to you.
Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CODX)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/co-diagnostics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8589&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020
Class Period: February 25, 2020 - May 15, 2020
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.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
COT'N WASH: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cot'n Wash, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Cot'n Wash, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-03822 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cot'n Wash Inc. produces cleaning products. The Company
manufactures phosphate-free laundry detergent in liquid and drop-in
packet form.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
CROOKED MEDIA: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------
Crooked Media, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Crooked Media, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03922 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 25, 2020).
Crooked Media is an American political media company. It was
founded in 2017 by Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor, all
former top Barack Obama staffers and former co-hosts of the Keepin'
it 1600 podcast.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DACM DIGITAL LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
DACM Digital, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DACM Digital, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-03801 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2020).
Digital Asset Capital Management is a specialist manager of digital
asset funds .[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
DAIRYAMERICA INC: 9th Cir. Tosses Appeal vs. $40MM Deal in Carlin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued a
Memorandum dismissing an appeal in the case captioned GERALD
CARLIN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. JOHN SPOONER; et al.,
Objectors-Appellants v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC.; CALIFORNIA DAIRIES,
INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-16166 (9th Cir.).
The Objectors appeal the District Court's order approving a
$40-million class action settlement between the
Plaintiffs-Appellees (a class of almost 26,000 dairy farmers) and
Defendants-Appellees DairyAmerica, Inc. and California Dairies,
Inc. (collectively, "Appellees").
A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in civil
cases; appeals courts "must dismiss civil appeals that are untimely
for lack of jurisdiction, whether or not the parties raise the
issue," citing United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir.
2007).
The Court of Appeals notes that there is no valid notice of appeal
in this case. The District Court struck the Objectors' notice of
appeal for failure to comply with local and federal rules because
it was signed only by the Objectors' attorney, who was neither
admitted to the Bar of the Eastern District of California nor
permitted to appear in the case pro hac vice. The Objectors did not
appeal the District Court's order striking the notice of appeal or
seek to cure the notice's deficiencies.
A valid notice of appeal is the mechanism that transfers
jurisdiction from the district court to the court of appeals,
citing Ruby v. Sec'y of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 388 (9th Cir. 1966)
(en banc) ("If, by reason of defects in form or execution, a notice
of appeal does not transfer jurisdiction to the court of appeals,
then such jurisdiction must remain in the district court; it cannot
float in the air."); see also Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905,
908 (9th Cir. 2007).
Because there is no valid notice of appeal, the Court of Appeals
dismisses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 11, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8kfzz5c from Leagle.com.
DR. SQUATCH: Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Squatch, Inc is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Michelle
Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dr. Squatch, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-03803 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2020).
Dr. Squatch offers personal care with handmade bar soaps and high
quality natural products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
DRIZLY LLC: Birdoes Files Breach of Contract Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drizly LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Mary Birdoes, Jeff Bowlin, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Drizly LLC, Drizly
Group Incorporated, Case No. 2:20-cv-01639-GMS (D. Ariz., Aug. 20,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Drizly is the nation's largest e-commerce alcohol marketplace and
the best way to shop beer, wine and spirits.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell Snow Thompson, IV, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
Mesa, AZ 85206
Phone: (602) 388-8898
Fax: (866) 317-2674
Email: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com
EAGLE POINTE: Cooper Suit Transferred to E.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Heidi Cooper, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eagle Pointe ICG LLC, a
Washington limited liability company and Security Properties
Residential LLC, a Washington corporation, Defendants, was
transferred from Spokane County Court with the assigned Case No.
20-00002-02131-32 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington (Spokane) on August 25, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-00305-SMJ.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Other.
Eagle Pointe Capital is a boutique investment banking firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Cameron, Esq.
Cameron Sutherland PLLC
421 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
Spokane, WA 99201
Tel: (509) 315-4507
Fax: (509) 315-4584
Email: bcameron@cameronsutherland.com
- and -
Kirk D Miller, Esq.
Kirk D Miller PS
421 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
Spokane, WA 99201
Tel: (509) 413-1494
Fax: (509) 413-1724
Email: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com
- and -
Shayne Sutherland, Esq.
Cameron Sutherland PLLC
421 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
Spokane, WA 99201
Tel: (509) 315-4507
Fax: (509) 315-4585
Email: ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew J Mitchell, Esq.
Mitchell & Mitchell PLLC
1710 N. Washington Street, Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99205
Tel: (509) 315-9890
Fax: (509) 315-9891
Email: amitchell@mitchell-lp.com
- and -
Vicki L Mitchell, Esq.
Lake City Law Group PLLC
1710 N Washington Street, Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99205
Tel: (509) 315-9890
Fax: (509) 315-9891
Email: vmitchell@mitchell-lp.com
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Endo
International plc ("Endo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ENDP) for
violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Endo
International plc for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 8,
2017 and June 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 18, 2020.
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. Endo and its subsidiaries played a far
larger role in the opioid crisis than it represented to the market.
The Company published false information directed towards healthcare
providers about the risks and benefits of its opioid drugs. The
facts opened the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny,
particularly by the state of New York. 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 Endo, investors suffered damages. [GN]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Facing Visser Securities Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company is a named defendant in a purported
securities class action suit entitled Visser, et al. v. Energy
Recovery, Inc., et al..
On July 21, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Visser, et al. v. Energy Recovery, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-05647-VM (S.D.N.Y.)), naming as defendants, the Company
and certain of the Company's present and former executive officers.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making materially false and
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business operations and financial health.
The Complaint further alleges unspecified damages based on the
decline in the market price of the Company's shares following the
announcement of the termination of the VorTeq License.
The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.
Energy Recovery said, "At this time, the Company is not able to
estimate any reasonable possible loss, if any, due to the early
state of this matter."
Energy Recovery, Inc. is an energy solutions provider to industrial
fluid flow markets worldwide. The company is based in San Leandro,
California.
EPIQ SYSTEMS: California Resident Files CCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
DH Kass, writing for MSSP Alert, reports that a California resident
has filed a class action lawsuit claiming that a Rhode Island legal
services provider hit by a ransomware attack has violated the
state's data privacy law by exposing the personal data of 50,000 of
its citizens.
Benjamin Karter filed the complaint in the Superior Court for the
State of California for the County of Orange on May 26, 2020,
asserting that Epiq Systems Inc. failed to comply with California's
Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The lawsuit has been moved to U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
Epic provides legal services to law firms, corporations and
government agencies through its subsidiaries.
CCPA Violations: Potential Penalties
The CCPA, which resembles the European Union's General Data
Protection Regulation, gives the state's 40 million residents the
right to require a business to disclose the types of personal
information it collects on the consumer, where that information is
collected and whether it's being sold or shared. Violators could be
docked up to $7,500 for each infraction. The law mandates that
companies buying or selling personal information for over 50,000
households or customers must meet CCPA terms. It is the first and
the only such data privacy law in the country and extends to
businesses headquartered outside the state but conducting business
within its borders.
Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. a subsidiary of Epiq
Systems that provides class action administration services, is the
official entity named in Carter's complaint. Epiq Class Action
allegedly collected information from more than 50,000 California
residents, according to the filing.
Epiq's networks were victimized by ransomware hackers in late
February, 2020 resulting in the exfiltration of both "nonencrypted
and nonredacted personal information," according to the filing.
Karter, whose social security number along with thousands of others
was stored on Epiq's servers, claims that the malware attack
succeeded because Epiq had not updated Microsoft's Windows
operating system to a later version less vulnerable to hacking. Had
Epiq upgraded its systems software the attack may not have
succeeded, Carter said.
"Epiq's negligent and careless acts and omissions and the failure
to protect consumers' data" led to the theft of information, Karter
claims in the filing. "Epiq has failed to satisfy its duty under
the California Consumer Privacy Act," the complaint reads. Karter
believes that "this malware and ransomware exfiltrated sensitive
data on Epiq's network(s) and the data is now in the hands of the
perpetrators [of the attack]." Owing to the data security
incidents, Karter and other class members "face a lifetime risk of
identity theft," the plaintiff claims.
What the Plaintiff Wants
Carter is asking for statutory damages of not less than $100 and
not greater than $750 per consumer per incident. Were the minimum
statutory damages to be applied, the "amount of controversy" would
exceed $5 million, filings said. Karter also seeks actual damages,
including punitive damages.
Epiq has denied all of the allegations. "We can state with
confidence, based upon our own investigation as well as a complete
forensic investigation and verification by our third party
consultant, Mandiant, that all allegations, including the
allegation of any data exfiltration and including that of Mr.
Karter's, during the event in February 2020 are baseless and
without merit," said Catherine Ostheimer, vice president of
marketing at Epiq in a statement. [GN]
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss a
putative securities class action before the Southern District of
New York (SDNY) remains pending.
On May 13, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its executive officers.
On August 16, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and on
October 15, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Company
securities between April 20, 2018, and April 23, 2019.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company made materially misleading
statements about the Company's financial results, business,
operations and prospects starting on April 20, 2018, that these
statements caused the Company's securities to be overvalued and
that the "truth" came out on January 24, 2019, when the Company
disclosed that a credit relationship was downgraded and further on
April 22, 2019, when the Company disclosed a $14,500 provision for
loan loss against that credit relationship.
On December 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss which
remains pending before the court.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.
Equity Bancshares said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the outcome of this litigation."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Equity Bancshares, Inc., incorporated on August 23, 2002, is a bank
holding company. The Company's principal activity is the ownership
and management of its subsidiary, Equity Bank (the Bank). The Bank
provides a range of financial services primarily to businesses and
business owners, as well as individuals through its network of over
49 branches located in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma. The
company is based in Wichita, Kansas.
ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Beltz"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
has denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of their appeal.
On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members
Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and
Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen;
C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W.
Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C.
Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of Exchange
who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The
individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the
then-current Directors of Indemnity.
As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the same
allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan
lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders
of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself.
Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the
Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February 10, 2014, the court
entered an order granting Indemnity's motion to intervene and
permitting Indemnity to join the Directors' motion to dismiss;
granting in part the Directors' motion to dismiss; referring the
matter to the Department to decide any and all issues within its
jurisdiction; denying all other relief sought in the Directors'
motion as moot; and dismissing the case without prejudice.
To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's
review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would
proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable
determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will
be applied to the Beltz action.
On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On November 17,
2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on Indemnity's motion to
dismiss the appeal and instructed the parties to address that
motion, as well as the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, in the
parties' briefing. Briefing was completed on April 2, 2015.
In light of the Department's April 29, 2015 decision in Sullivan,
the Parties then jointly requested that the Beltz appeal be
voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015.
The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for
dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8,
2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and
judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it
lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the District
Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to the
Department was not a final, appealable order.
On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled as
a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan, and
Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie
Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T.
Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman;
Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P.
Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert;
George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N.
Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield;
Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck;
Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The
individual defendants are all present or former Directors of
Indemnity (the "Directors").
The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges.
The Beltz II lawsuit alleges that the retention of the Service
Charges and Added Service Charges was improper because, for among
other reasons, that retention constituted a breach of the
Subscriber's Agreement and an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing by Indemnity, breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity
and the other defendants, conversion by Indemnity, and unjust
enrichment by defendants Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, and
Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, at the expense of Exchange.
The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment
be entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and
Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the conduct
alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to, Defendants'
retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges;
enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the Service Charges
and Added Service Charges; and awarding compensatory and punitive
damages and interest.
On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their
own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit.
On July 17, 2017, the Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors'
motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its
entirety. The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does not
govern the separate and additional charges at issue in the
Complaint" and, therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim
against Indemnity for failure to state a claim.
The Court also ruled that the remaining claims, including the
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the
Directors, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or
fail to state legally cognizable claims. On August 14, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On May 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Beltz II
lawsuit. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking
rehearing of their appeal before the Third Circuit. The Third
Circuit denied that petition on June 14, 2018.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for
the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United
States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy
issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and
is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.
EXACT SCIENCES: Genomic Defends Flannery Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Exact Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that Genomic Health continues to defend an
individual and class action complaint entitled, Flannery v. Genomic
Health, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0492.
On November 8, 2019, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
capital stock of Genomic Health. Genomic Health, headquartered in
Redwood City, California, provides genomic-based diagnostic tests
that address both the overtreatment and optimal treatment of early
and late stage cancer.
In connection with the company's combination with Genomic Health,
on June 22, 2020, Suzanne Flannery, a purported former stockholder
of Genomic Health, filed a Verified Individual and Class Action
Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Flannery v.
Genomic Health, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0492.
The complaint asserts individual and class action claims,
including: (i) a violation of 8 Del. C. Section 203 by Genomic
Health's former directors; (ii) conversion by Genomic Health, Exact
and Spring Acquisition Corp.; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty by
Genomic Health's former directors; (iv) breach of fiduciary duty by
a purported controlling group of former Genomic Health stockholders
comprised of funds managed by former Genomic Health directors,
Julian Baker and Felix Baker; and (v) aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against Exact, Spring Acquisition and Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC, Genomic Health's financial advisor in the combination.
The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory relief,
unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
All defendants intend to move to dismiss the complaint.
Exact Sciences Corporation is a molecular diagnostics company with
an initial focus on the early detection and prevention of
colorectal cancer. Exact Sciences Corp. launched Cologuard in 2014,
the first stool DNA test for colorectal cancer. The company is
based in Madison, Wisconsin.
FACEBOOK INC: $650MM Accord Reached in Biometrics Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the parties in the class action suit
challenging the use of facial recognition feature have executed an
amended settlement agreement, which, among other terms, provides
for a payment of $650 million by the company.
On April 1, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Facebook users alleging that the "tag suggestions"
facial recognition feature violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, and seeking statutory damages and
injunctive relief.
On April 16, 2018, the district court certified a class of Illinois
residents, and on May 14, 2018, the district court denied both
parties' motions for summary judgment. On May 29, 2018, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's
petition for review of the class certification order and stayed the
proceeding. On August 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class
certification order.
On December 2, 2019, the company filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the Ninth Circuit,
which was denied. On January 15, 2020, the parties agreed to a
settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit, which provided for
a payment of $550 million by the company and was subject to court
approval.
On or about May 8, 2020, the parties executed a formal settlement
agreement, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement by the district court. On June 4, 2020, the
district court denied the plaintiffs' motion without prejudice.
On July 22, 2020, the parties executed an amended settlement
agreement, which, among other terms, provides for a payment of $650
million by the company.
The settlement is subject to court approval. The settlement amount
is reflected in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on
the company's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30,
2020.
Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Reached in Cyber-Attack Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the parties in the consolidated class action
suit related to the third-party cyber-attack have agreed to a
settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit.
Beginning on September 28, 2018, multiple putative class actions
were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and
elsewhere against the company alleging violations of consumer
protection laws and other causes of action in connection with a
third-party cyber-attack that exploited a vulnerability in
Facebook's code to steal user access tokens and access certain
profile information from user accounts on Facebook, and seeking
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
The actions filed in the United States were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
On November 26, 2019, the district court certified a class for
injunctive relief purposes, but denied certification of a class for
purposes of pursuing damages.
On January 16, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit.
Facebook said, "We believe the remaining lawsuits are without
merit, and we are vigorously defending them. In addition, the
events surrounding this cyber-attack became the subject of Irish
Data Protection Commission (IDPC) and other government inquiries."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.
FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated
class action suit related to its platform and user data practices.
Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States and elsewhere against the company and certain of its
directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws,
breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in
connection with our platform and user data practices as well as the
misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such data with
third parties in violation of the company's terms and policies, and
seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed
in federal court in the United States against the company and
certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the company's
earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking
unspecified damages. These two actions subsequently were
transferred and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California with the putative securities class
action described above relating to our platform and user data
practices.
On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class
action, with leave to amend. On November 15, 2019, an amended
complaint was filed in the consolidated putative securities class
action.
The company believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and it
is vigorously defending them.
Facebook said, "In addition, our platform and user data practices,
as well as the events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a
developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), state attorneys general, and other government inquiries in
the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions. In July 2019,
we entered into a settlement and modified consent order to resolve
the FTC inquiry, which was approved by the federal court and took
effect in April 2020. Among other matters, our settlement with the
FTC required us to pay a penalty of $5.0 billion which was paid in
April 2020 upon the effectiveness of the modified consent order.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.
FLOOR & DECOR: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Georgia Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 25, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit entitled, In re Floor & Decor
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ , is
pending.
On May 20, 2019, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, Taylor v. Floor & Decor Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
the Company and certain of its officers, directors and
stockholders.
On August 14, 2019, the Court named a lead plaintiff, and the case
was re-captioned In re Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.).
The operative complaint alleges certain violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, purported materially
false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the
Company between May 23, 2018 and August 1, 2018 and seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys'
fees and equitable relief.
The Company denies the material allegations and has moved to
dismiss the lawsuit.
Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc., formerly FDO Holdings, Inc.,
incorporated on October 15, 2010, is a retailer of hard surface
flooring and related accessories. The Company retails its products
such as tile, stone, wood, marble, glass and decoratives. The
company is based in Smyrna, Georgia.
FLORIDA TECH: Hedges Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Florida Tech, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Donna
Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Florida Tech, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06086 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 4, 2020).
Florida Tech Inc. is located at 150 W. University Blvd., Melbourne,
FL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
FRANKLIN SPORTS: Paguada ADA Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Sports, Inc.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Franklin Sports, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-06668 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Franklin Sports is the home of official MLB, NFL, MLS, NHL &
college sports gear, sporting goods, indoor games & more for
athletes & sports fans of all ages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Singh TCPA Class Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Mortgage
Corp. The case is styled as Mony Singh, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., Case
No. 2:20-at-00824 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Freedom Mortgage Corporation operates as a mortgage lender. The
Company provides purchase, re-financing, and lending services for
buying real estate.[BN]
FRONTLINE ASSET: Gibson Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Suzette Gibson, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontline
Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05011 (N.D.
Ill., Aug. 25, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
FrontLine Asset Strategies LLC or FAS is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Dec. Final Hearing on Economic-Loss Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has entered orders granting preliminary
approval of the Class Settlement Agreement in the
economic-loss-related class action suits. The final fairness
hearing is set for December 2020.
The company is aware of over 100 putative class actions that were
filed against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that
consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or
Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) had been economically harmed by
one or more of the 2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle
conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases).
In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
relief.
Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. These plaintiffs have
asserted economic-loss claims under federal and state laws,
including claims relating to recalled vehicles manufactured by GM
and claims asserting successor liability relating to certain
recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC.
In August 2017, the Southern District granted the company's motion
to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of
the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional
briefing to decide whether plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the
other nine states.
In December 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' successor liability claims in an
additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of
material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other
states.
In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions
of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling.
That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing plaintiffs'
successor liability claims in any state where New York law
applies.
In September 2018, the Southern District granted the company's
motion to dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47
jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied the
company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' economic loss claims in 27
jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule.
In August 2019, the Southern District granted the company's motion
for summary judgment on plaintiffs' economic loss "benefit of the
bargain" damage claims (the August 2019 Opinion). The Southern
District held that plaintiffs' conjoint analysis-based damages
model failed to establish that plaintiffs suffered
difference-in-value damages and without such evidence, plaintiffs'
difference-in-value damage claims fail under the laws of all three
bellwether states: California, Missouri and Texas.
Later in August 2019, the bellwether plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the Southern District reconsider its summary
judgment decision or allow an interlocutory appeal if
reconsideration is denied. In December 2019, the Southern District
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the August 2019
Opinion, but granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of an
interlocutory appeal.
On April 1, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second
Circuit) granted the bellwether plaintiffs' petition seeking leave
to appeal the August 2019 Opinion. On April 15, 2020, the
bellwether plaintiffs and GM filed a Stipulation to withdraw the
appeal from the Second Circuit based on the class settlement
agreement. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the bellwether plaintiffs
can reinstate the appeal no later than April 2021. The Second
Circuit endorsed the Stipulation by order on April 16, 2020.
In September 2019, GM filed an updated motion for summary judgment
on plaintiffs' remaining economic loss claims that were not
addressed in the Southern District's August 2019 Opinion and
renewed its evidentiary motion seeking to strike the opinions of
plaintiff's expert on plaintiffs' alleged "lost time" damages
associated with having the recall repairs performed.
In March 2020, GM, plaintiffs and the MLC GUC Trust (GUC Trust)
reached a settlement agreement (Class Settlement Agreement) to
resolve on a national basis the economic loss claims of the
proposed settlement class and proposed sub-classes, consisting of
consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles covered by the seven
2014 safety recalls at issue in the Southern District and the
Bankruptcy Court.
The proposed Class Settlement Agreement provides a common fund of
approximately $120 million for settlement class members, of which
GM will fund approximately $70 million and the GUC Trust will fund
the remaining $50 million.
GM will also pay attorneys' fees and costs that may be awarded by
the Southern District to plaintiffs’ counsel up to a maximum of
$35 million.
In April 2020, the Avoidance Action Trust (AAT), GM and plaintiffs
reached a tentative settlement under which the AAT will pay an
insignificant amount and will be added as a settling party to the
Class Settlement Agreement.
During April and May 2020, the Southern District entered orders
granting preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement.
The deadline for class members to object to or opt-out of the Class
Settlement Agreement is October 2020. The final fairness hearing is
set for December 2020.
General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
HERRICK STAMP: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herrick Stamp
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Herrick Stamp
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06696 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Herrick Stamp Company sells old stamps, foreign stamps, new issue
stamps, wholesale stamp lots and USA stamps.[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
HOMESUBLIME LLC: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homesublime, LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Homesublime, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06667 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Home Sublime LLC sells custom window treatments. The Company offers
blinds, shades, drapery, drapery panels, valances, cornices,
shutters, and solar screens.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
IBM CORP: Fessler's Counsel Comments on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that litigating
against IBM Corp. over its sales-commission practices has been
tough, but "it's been fun," plaintiffs' counsel Matthew E. Lee, a
partner at Whitfield Bryson LLP in Raleigh, tells Bloomberg Law.
Lee and his co-counsel scored a major victory against IBM in May,
when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit revived their
client Justin Fessler's claims that the company had unlawfully
capped his sales commissions, after repeatedly telling him that his
earning potential was limitless in sales meetings and PowerPoint
presentations.
The Fourth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia's decision to dismiss the suit, saying that
Fessler had alleged enough facts to allow a jury to conclude that
he reasonably relied on IBM's statements.
The "stakes were really high" on that appeal, Lee said in a July 27
interview, because the court's decision controlled the outcome of
several similar cases pending against IBM over its sales commission
practices.
It helps to work with a great team. "The three of us together, we
complement each other well," Lee said, referring to his co-counsel
Jeremy Williams of Whitfield Bryson and Mark Sigmon of Sigmon Law
PLLC.
"I don't think anything happens in the litigation world,"
especially at this level, "with one person," he added.
Whitfield Bryson has offices in Charleston, S.C., Los Angeles,
Nashville, and Raleigh, N.C.
'Very Bleak'
Lee began working in complex plaintiffs' litigation immediately
after earning his law degree in 2006 from Wake Forest Law School.
He first learned about IBM's commissions practices when a friend
from his college years at Catholic University came to him with the
case.
As he dug deeper, it struck him how, in case after case, IBM had
consistently beaten back these types of claims, to the point where
it looked "very bleak for a plaintiff."
But Lee said his team is well-equipped to explore cases like this
and "go toe-to-toe" with IBM and its lawyers at Jackson Lewis PC.
"That's the beauty of our system, it's the great equalizer," Lee
said.
IBM has argued that its incentive plan letters contain disclaimers
about commissions that put sales staff on notice of the company's
ability to adjust the payments.
Next Up, California Class
After beating IBM's dismissal and summary judgment motions and
negotiating settlements for individual clients in multiple cases,
Lee and his team filed a proposed class action in California in
late 2019.
California law explicitly requires employers to provide written
commissions contracts that explain how those payments are
calculated.
IBM doesn't comply with that rule with its sales employees, Lee
said, and at least one California federal court has agreed with
that argument.
'It Always Takes a Team'
Teamwork and preparation are more important than ever, with growing
caseload and the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Depositions are especially critical in these cases, so attorneys
need to be "ready for battle," Lee said. That means knowing the
documents, asking the right questions, and pinning down the right
issues.
Having a good document management system and a strong support staff
also "makes a huge difference," Lee said. The team also talks
regularly on the phone to stay organized and keep track of
deadlines, especially during the pandemic.
"You do lose something, particularly in depositions, being remote,"
but briefing tends to take precedence in federal court, Lee noted.
Working remotely does have its upsides, though.
Before the pandemic, Lee often had to travel from Raleigh to San
Francisco to attend court hearings and scheduling conferences for
his cases in the Northern District of California. With courts
conducting more matters remotely, he's now able to prepare at home
and argue from a conference room. [GN]
IDEANOMICS INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Ideanomics, Inc. There is no
cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have
until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.
Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDEX)
Class Period: March 20, 2020 - June 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 27, 2020
The complaint alleges that throughout 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in IDEX:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ideanomics-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8593&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
IRVING N. MOTOR CO: Gilmore Files Suit Under TCPA in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irving N. Motor
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Flora Gilmore, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Irving N.
Motor Company, LLC doing business as: Clay Cooley Nissan Irving, a
Texas Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-02253-K (N.D., Tex., Aug. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.
Clay Cooley Nissan of Irving of Irving TX serving Dallas,
Arlington, Grand Prairie, is one of Irving's Nissan dealers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angelica Gentile, Esq.
Shamis & Gentile, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (305) 479-2299
Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com
JAMESTOWN STAMP: Calcano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jamestown Stamp
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Jamestown Stamp
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06701 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jamestown Stamp Company is one of the oldest and most trusted stamp
dealers in the United States.[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
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: Student Files Class Suit Over Tuition, Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Bennett, writing for KentWired.com, reports that a Kent State
student has filed a class action lawsuit against the university for
not fully refunding tuition and fees after
in-person classes were canceled in spring due to the coronavirus
pandemic.
The complaint, filed June 17 by junior finance major Caitlyn Waitt
in the Ohio Court of Claims, states the university violated its
contract with students by not reimbursing them for tuition and
mandatory fees despite canceling face-to-face classes.
"In short, plaintiff and the members of the class have paid tuition
for a first-rate education and an on-campus, in-person educational
experience, with all the appurtenant benefits offered by a
first-rate university, and were provided a materially deficient and
insufficient alternative," the complaint states.
The mandatory fees include the general fee and enrollment fee. The
general fee typically covers costs such as recreation services,
health center services, student organizations and intercollegiate
athletics, according to the university website.
"Because of the university's response to the coronavirus disease
2019 pandemic, on or about March 16, 2020, the university also
stopped providing any of the services or facilities the mandatory
fee was intended to cover," the complaint states.
In an email, Eric Mansfield, executive director of university media
relations, said the university received the complaint and does not
comment on pending litigation.
The complaint was filed on behalf of all students who paid to take
in-person classes at Kent State during the spring semester, summer
semester and any future semesters where classes move to online
learning.
Kent State "failed to provide the quality of education and services
and facilities for which tuition and the mandatory fees were paid,
including those for an in-person and on-campus live education and
access to the university's services and facilities," according to
the complaint.
It also states the university should:
* Reimburse students for mandatory fees and a prorated portion
of tuition for the time after in-person classes were canceled
during the spring and summer semesters.
* Provide prorated refunds for unused housing and meal plans to
students who lived on campus, but did not vacate their housing
before March 30, the deadline Kent State set for students to move
out and receive a prorated refund.
Kent State filed a motion to dismiss the complaint July 20. The
motion states Waitt's breach of contract complaint is actually a
claim of educational malpractice, which Ohio courts do not
recognize.
In addition, it states the complaint does not contain enough
evidence to support the claim that the university's online courses
were inadequate compared to its in-person courses. Kent State
"provided its students with educational services through the end of
the semester so they could complete their credit hours and continue
to matriculate with their degree programs toward graduation without
delay."
The motion states that amid the COVID-19 outbreak, the university
"made the lawful academic decision to continue with remote learning
rather than putting its students and faculty at risk or canceling
the semester halfway through." The university followed executive
orders from the office of Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, according to
the motion, along with public health directives when it switched to
remote learning on March 12.
Kent State should not be obligated to refund tuition for the summer
semester, according to the motion, because students were aware the
classes would be remote before they enrolled in them.
"Under this theory of damages, the plaintiff essentially demands
that students who willingly and knowingly enroll in remote courses
for summer 2020 or later terms not have to pay tuition but instead
be allowed to enroll in college classes for free," the motion
states.
It states the university should not have to provide prorated
refunds for housing and meal plans to students who did not vacate
their dorms before March 30 because it continued to offer them
these services.
The university also stated in its motion that Waitt cannot
represent that part of the class in the complaint because she did
not live on campus or pay housing and dining fees for the spring
2020 semester.
Waitt did not respond to requests for comment. James Simon and
Clifford Bendau, two of Waitt's attorneys who submitted the
complaint, said they had no comment on the case. Attorney Carlson
Lynch, who is also listed on the complaint, did not respond to a
request for comment.
Simon, Bendau and Lynch also filed a class action complaint June 12
against Ohio University on behalf of 2020 alumna Lily Zahn that
asks fora partial refund of tuition and fees following the
university's shift of academic instruction online.
Another class action complaint was filed against Ohio State
University and the Ohio Department of Higher Education on behalf of
Morgan McDermott and all students enrolled in a graduate or
undergraduate program on the main Columbus campus during the spring
2020 semester. The complaint includes a "subclass of all students
enrolled in the Ohio State College of Dentistry's DDS program"
during the spring and summer 2020 semesters.
The complaint states Ohio State failed to "offer any refund of any
portion of the Student Union Facility Fee it charges all students
attending classes at its Columbus campus or any portion of the
Clinical Support Fee it charges all DDS candidates, despite OSU's
closing of the Ohio Union and of the DDS clinics on March 16, 2020"
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The complaint asks that Ohio State return a prorated portion of the
Student Union Facility Fee, as well as a prorated portion of the
Clinical Support Fee.
The University of Toledo also faces a complaint filed by Trevor
Cross on behalf of "himself and all others similarly situated." The
complaint seeks refunds of the amounts students paid for tuition,
room and board, fees and other applicable costs on a prorated
basis, or an "equivalent reduction in amounts owing as well as
other damages to be elaborated on herein."
Waitt requested a 10-day extension until August 13 to respond to
Kent State's motion to dismiss, in part to decide whether to
respond to the motion, amend the complaint or consolidate it with
the cases against the University of Toledo and Ohio University.
[GN]
KIRKLAND LAKE: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Kirkland Lake Gold
Ltd. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. (NYSE:KL)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/kirkland-lake-gold-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=8589&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 28, 2020
Class Period: January 8, 2018 - November 25, 2019
Allegations against KL include that: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting, especially as it
relates to its projections of risks, reserve grade, and all-in
sustaining costs; (ii) as a result of the known, but undisclosed,
impending acquisition of Detour, the Company's projections relating
to its risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false
and misleading; (iii) the Company's financial statements and
projections were not fairly presented in conformity with
International Financial Reporting Standards; (iv) 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.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
KRAFT HEINZ: Hollywood Police and Union Asset Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the City of Hollywood Police Officers'
Retirement System v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al. lawsuit, filed
on March 25, 2020, has been consolidated with Union Asset
Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al.
securities class action suit pending before the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The Kraft Heinz Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors are currently defendants in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Union Asset
Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al.
The consolidated class action complaint, which was filed on January
6, 2020 and also names 3G Capital, Inc. and several of its
subsidiaries and affiliates ("3G Entities") as defendants, asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly materially false or
misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press
releases, investor presentations, earnings calls, and Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings regarding the Company's
business, financial results, and internal controls, and further
alleges the 3G Entities engaged in insider trading and
misappropriated the Company's material, non-public information.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.
The City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System v. The
Kraft Heinz Company, et al. lawsuit, filed on March 25, 2020, has
been consolidated into this matter.
The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne Suit v. Employee Benefits Board Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company's Employee Benefits Administration
Board continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Osborne v.
Employee Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, et al.
The company's Employee Benefits Administration Board and certain of
The Kraft Heinz Company's current and former officers and employees
are currently defendants in an Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA") class action lawsuit, Osborne v. Employee Benefits
Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, et al., which is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit purport to represent a class of current
and former employees who were participants in and beneficiaries of
various retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled
investment fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust
(the "Master Trust") during the period of May 4, 2017 through
February 21, 2019.
An amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2019. The amended
complaint alleges violations of Section 502 of ERISA based on
alleged breaches of obligations as fiduciaries subject to ERISA by
allowing the Master Trust to continue investing in the company's
common stock, and alleges additional breaches of fiduciary duties
by current and former officers for their purported failure to
monitor Master Trust fiduciaries.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
nproducts in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese
and dairy products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee,
and other grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J.
Heinz Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz
Company in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869
and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Davis & Vargas Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' complaint and to strike class allegations in
Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings remains pending.
On January 31, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
The lawsuit alleges that visually impaired patients are unable to
use the Company's touchscreen kiosks at Company patient service
centers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
similar California statutes.
The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees and costs.
On March 20, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Bermejo Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Jose Bermejo v.
Laboratory Corporation of America.
On May 14, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Central District, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based
employees were not properly compensated for driving time or
properly paid wages upon termination of employment.
The Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California
Labor Code provisions and Section 17200 of the Business and
Professional Code.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery
of attorney's fees and costs.
On June 15, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
On June 16, 2020, the Company was served with a Private Attorney
General Act lawsuit by the same plaintiff in Jose Bermejo v.
Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that
certain Company practices violated California Labor Code penalty
provisions related to unpaid and minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
unpaid mean and rest break premiums, untimely payment of wages
following separation of employment, failure to maintain accurate
pay records, and non-reimbursement of business expenses.
The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of
attorney's fees and costs.
The Company will vigorously defend both lawsuits.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Defends Cobb & Joseph Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is defending against
putative class action suits initiated by Marshall Cobb and Marc
Joseph.
On March 11, 2020, Marshall Cobb, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the state District Court of Denver County, Colorado
against the Company and certain officers and board members of the
Company along with other defendants in connection with the initial
public offering (IPO).
The Cobb Complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers
and board members of the Company violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of inaccurate or misleading
statements allegedly contained in the registration statement filed
in connection with the IPO and requests unspecified damages and
costs.
The Cobb Plaintiffs also allege control person liability claims
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain
officers and board members of the Company and other defendants.
On April 3, 2020, Marc Joseph, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court in Denver, Colorado against the
Company and certain officers and board members of the Company along
with other defendants in connection with the IPO and requests
unspecified damages and costs.
The Joseph Complaint, which is based on similar factual allegations
made in the Cobb Complaint, alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of
inaccurate or misleading statements allegedly contained in the
registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the
IPO.
The Joseph Complaint also alleges control person liability claims
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain
officers and board members of the Company and other defendants.
The Company has hired counsel and plans to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the Securities Lawsuits.
Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. operates as an oilfield service
company. The Company specializes in hydraulic fracturing,
stimulation, and engineering services. Liberty Oilfield Services
serves customers throughout the United States. The company is based
in Denver, Colorado.
LIGHTING BY JARED: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighting by Jared,
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Lighting by Jared, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-06669 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lighting by Jared, Inc., distributes lighting fixtures. The Company
offers ceiling and wall lighting fittings, electric lamps,
batteries, and other commercial lighting equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend a complaint in the class action suit entitled,
Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, remains pending.
Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company ("LNL") on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.
On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.
In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which we have opposed.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.
In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.
Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC
breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016.
Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek
damages on their behalf.
Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends Hanks Class Suit vs. Unit, Voya
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company's subsidiary, The
Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY"), continues
to be actively engaged in the vigorous defense of the class action
suit styled, Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New
York ("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company
("Voya").
Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY") and
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("Voya"), filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No.
1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY
on August 12, 2016.
Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff’s policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.
On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and
denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim
against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an
order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with
respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a
defendant in the case.
In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the
parties’ rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be
actively engaged in the vigorous defense of this action.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
MACROGENICS INC: CPERS, Scott+Scott to Lead Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish
of East Baton Rouge has been appointed as lead plaintiff in a
securities class action suit initiated by Todd Hill.
Its counsel, Scott+Scott, is appointed lead counsel.
MacroGenics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that on September 13, 2019, a securities class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland by Todd Hill naming the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Dr. Scott Koenig, and its Chief Financial
Officer, Mr. James Karrels, as defendants for allegedly making
false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's
SOPHIA trial.
The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
February 6, 2019 to June 3, 2019.
On November 12, 2019, the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge sought appointment as
lead plaintiff, which motion remains pending.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
MacroGenics said, "However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this time and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a
range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any
liability associated with this action."
MacroGenics, Inc. develops novel biologics. The Company specializes
in treatments for autoimmune disorders, cancer, and infectious
diseases. MacroGenics serves the healthcare industry in the United
States. The company is based in Rockville, Maryland.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Defendants Want 2nd Amended Securities Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in the consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, remains pending.
In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three
class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma.
On September 13, 2019, the court consolidated the three lawsuits
under the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation.
On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint against Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Arty Straehla, and
Mark Layton. Pursuant to their first amended complaint, the
plaintiffs brought a consolidated putative federal securities class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. common stock between October
19, 2017, and June 5, 2019, inclusive.
On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint.
On March 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
for violation of federal securities laws which contains allegations
substantially similar to those contained in the plaintiff’s first
amended complaint.
On March 30, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.
The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend the action.
Mammoth Energy said, "However, at this time, the Company is not
able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have
a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: LeJeune's Conditional Class Status Bid Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the request for conditional class
certification filed by EJ LeJeune in LeJeune v. Mammoth Energy
Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy & ESPADA Logistics and Security
Group, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC, is pending.
On March 20, 2019, EJ LeJeune, a former employee of ESPADA
Logistics and Security Group, LLC and ESPADA Caribbean LLC
(together, "ESPADA") filed a putative collective and class action
complaint in LeJeune v. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra
Energy & ESPADA Logistics and Security Group, LLC, Case No.
5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.
On August 5, 2019, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend his complaint, dismissing Mammoth Energy Services,
Inc. as a defendant, adding Cobra Acquisitions LLC ("Cobra") as a
defendant, and adding ESPADA Caribbean LLC and two officers of
ESPADA -- James Jorrie and Jennifer Gay Jorrie -- as defendants.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants jointly employed
the plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and failed to pay
them overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Puerto Rico law.
The complaint also alleges the following violations of Puerto Rico
law: illegal deductions from workers' wages, failure to timely pay
all wages owed, failure to pay a required severance when
terminating workers without just cause, failure to pay for all
hours worked, failure to provide required meal periods, and failure
to pay a statutorily required bonus to eligible workers.
Mr. LeJeune seeks to represent a class of workers allegedly
employed by one or more defendants and paid a flat amount for each
day worked regardless of how many hours were worked.
The complaint seeks back wages, including overtime wages owed,
liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages owed, attorneys'
fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
On June 16, 2020, Cobra answered Mr. LeJeune's amended complaint,
denying that it employed Mr. LeJeune and the putative class members
and denying that they are entitled to relief from Cobra.
All other defendants have also answered the amended complaint.
On July 17, 2020, Mr. LeJeune moved for conditional certification
of a collective action and, on July 29, 2020, Cobra filed its
response.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.
Mammoth Energy said, "However, at this time, the Company is not
able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have
a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Class Suit Underway in Puerto Rico
---------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit in Puerto Rico initiated by Wendco of Puerto Rico
Inc.
On June 19, 2018, Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico styled Wendco of
Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant Inc.; Restaurant Operators
Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own behalf and in representation
of all businesses that conduct business in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions,
LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused power outages in
Puerto Rico while performing restoration work on Puerto Rico’s
electrical network following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017,
thereby interrupting commercial activities and causing economic
loss.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.
Mammoth said, "However, at this time, the Company is not able to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a
material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Williams Class Suit Against Unit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that Cobra Acquisitions LLC, a company
subsidiary, continues to defend a putative class and collective
action suit entitled, Christopher Williams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Higher Power Electrical,
LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy LLC in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
On April 16, 2019, Christopher Williams, a former employee of
Higher Power Electrical, LLC, filed a putative class and collective
action complaint in Christopher Williams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Higher Power Electrical,
LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy LLC in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
On June 24, 2019, the complaint was amended to replace Mr. Williams
with Matthew Zeisset as the named plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime wages
to a class of workers in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Puerto Rico law.
On August 21, 2019, upon request of the parties, the court stayed
proceedings in the lawsuit pending completion of individual
arbitration proceedings initiated by Mr. Zeisset and opt-in
plaintiffs. The arbitrations remain pending.
Other claimants have subsequently initiated additional individual
arbitration proceedings asserting similar claims. All complainants
and the respondents have paid the filing fees necessary to initiate
the arbitrations.
In May 2020, six arbitrations were held in the related matters.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the arbitrations.
Mammoth Energy said, "However, at this time, the Company is not
able to predict the outcomes of these proceedings or whether they
will have a material impact on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MASTERCARD INC: Damage Class Settlement Approval Order Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the district court's order granting approval of
the damage class settlement has been appealed.
In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions.
Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought
under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law.
The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa,
and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of
interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including
the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged
in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services.
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No.
1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
that seeks treble damages.
In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO")
and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard
and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate
U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance
because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release,
without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them
for Mastercard's litigation liabilities.
The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief
including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the
IPO.
In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.
The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and
liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial
institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of
an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the
merchant litigations.
Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of
the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a
settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions
with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard
would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.
In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs.
The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among
the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and
settlement sharing agreement. Mastercard also agreed to provide
class members with a short-term reduction in default credit
interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices,
including its "no surcharge" rule.
The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action
certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case
back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of
appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were
adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.
As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court
divided the merchants' claims into two separate classes - monetary
damages claims (the "Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to
business practices (the "Rules Relief Class"). The court appointed
separate counsel for each class.
In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation
entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages
Class claims. Mastercard increased its reserve by $237 million
during 2018 to reflect both its expected financial obligation under
the Damages Class settlement agreement and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases.
The time period during which Damages Class members were permitted
to opt out of the class settlement agreement ended in July 2019
with merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Damages
Class interchange volume choosing to opt out of the settlement.
The district court granted final approval of the settlement in
December 2019. The district court's settlement approval order has
been appealed.
Mastercard has commenced settlement negotiations with a number of
the opt-out merchants and has reached settlements and/or agreements
in principle to settle a number of these claims. The Damages Class
settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules Relief Class
claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the Rules Relief
Class are ongoing.
As of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Mastercard had accrued a
liability of $831 million and $914 million, respectively, as a
reserve for both the Damages Class litigation and the opt-out
merchant cases. As of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019,
Mastercard had $587 million and $584 million, respectively, in a
qualified cash settlement fund related to the Damages Class
litigation and classified as restricted cash on its consolidated
balance sheet.
The reserve as of June 30, 2020 for both the Damages Class
litigation and the opt-out merchants represents Mastercard's best
estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters. The portion
of the accrued liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and
the Damages Class litigation settlement does not represent an
estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a
final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability
if that were to occur.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MDL 2492: Franklin Suit Transferred to Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gregg Franklin, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association and Arizona Board of Regents, ex rel. Arizona
State University, Defendants, was transferred from Arizona with the
assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01394 to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04560.
The nature of the suit is stated as P.I.: Other.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
Raizner Slania, Llp
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
MET-RX SUBSTRATE: Paguada Files Class ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Met-Rx Substrate
Technology Delaware, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Met-Rx
Substrate Technology Delaware, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06672
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Met-Rx Substrate Technology Inc. provides nutritional products. The
Company offers protein bars, powders, drinks, and workout
supplement products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Brantley Files FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Beanita Brantley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:20-cv-00707-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind., Aug. 20, 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
MILLIMAN INC: Iwanski Suit Moved From New York to Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Thomas Iwanski, TVPX ARS Inc., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Milliman, Inc.,
Defendant; FIRST PENN-PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LINCOLN
NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Interested Parties; Case No.
1:20-mc-00224, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 20, 2020.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-mc-00086-RBS to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Miscellaneous.
Milliman, formerly Milliman & Robertson, is an international
actuarial and consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
Seth Ard, Esq.
SUSAN GODFREY LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (914) 298-3290
Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
sard@susmangodfrey.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joanna A. Diakos, Esq.
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
- and -
Priya Chadha, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP (NYC)
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6030
Phone: (908) 510-2534
The Interested Parties are represented by:
Alan B. Vickery, Esq.
Andrew Villacastin, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 446-2300
Email: avickery@bsfllp.com
avillacastin@bsfllp.com
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend
against a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On November 14, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against MoneyGram and certain of its executive
officers.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram made
material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the
stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that
MoneyGram entered into with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") in
October 2009 and with the deferred prosecution agreement (the
"DPA") that MoneyGram entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of
Justice in November 2012.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest,
and costs and attorneys' fees.
The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter.
MoneyGram said, "We are unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
MoneyGram International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides money transfer services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments, Global
Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. MoneyGram
International, Inc. was founded in 1940 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.
MORGAN STANLEY: Shapouri Files Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney, LLC. The case is styled as Desiree Shapouri, Richard
Mausner and Lori Mausner, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06640-UA (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Other filed as a Diversity Action.
Morgan Stanley Wealth Management is an American multinational
financial services corporation specializing in retail brokerage. It
is the wealth & asset management division of Morgan Stanley.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori Gwen Feldman, Esq.
George Gesten McDonald PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520
Tel: (917) 983-9321
Fax: (888) 421-4173
Email: lfeldman@4-justice.com
NOMAD GROUP: Sued by Tran for Not Paying Complete Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tran, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
NOMAD GROUP LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, CRISTINA
CHANQUIN, Individually, and SERGIO CHANQUIN, Individually, Case No.
8:20-cv-01945-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla., Aug. 20, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay complete overtime wages for every hour
worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been systemically
denied overtime wages to which they were entitled by law and now
seeks to hold the Defendants' accountable. This was not an innocent
mistake or oversight. In some instances, the Defendants refused to
pay the Plaintiff overtime when his paystubs showed he worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek. When the Plaintiff complained to the
Defendants, his efforts were futile and ultimately led to his
unlawful separation.
The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by denying the overtime
wages, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants knew exactly what
they were doing. Under no plausible interpretation of the FLSA were
the Plaintiff not entitled to overtime, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a non-exempt
"Sushi Preparer."
NGP is a sushi restaurant in Tampa, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George G. Triantis, Esq.
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: 813-223-5505
Fax: 813-257-0572
Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
GTriantis@forthepeople.com
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Veeravalli Sues to Seek Return of Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Surya Veeravalli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-04892 (N.D.
Ill., Aug. 20, 2020), seeks the University's disgorgement and
return of the pro-rated portion of its tuition and mandatory fees,
proportionate to the amount of time in the respective semesters
when the University closed and switched to online only learning.
The Plaintiff, and all persons, who paid tuition and/or fees to
attend Northwestern University for an in person, hands-on
educational services and experiences for the semesters or terms
affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"), paid all or part
of the tuition for an average yearly tuition that was around
$56,000 for undergraduate students, and mandatory fees for each
semester of approximately $459 including fees for wildcard replace,
student health, ASG activity fee, room fee, board fee, and dues
fees ("Mandatory Fees").
Mr. Veeravalli alleges that Northwestern has not refunded any
amount of the tuition or any of the Mandatory Fees, even though it
has implemented online only distance learning starting in March 13,
2020 and confirmed their first case on March 13, 2020. Because of
the University's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 13,
2020, the University also stopped providing any of the services or
facilities the Mandatory Fees were intended to cover. The
University's failure to provide the services for which tuition and
the Mandatory Fees were intended to cover since March 13, 2020, is
a breach of the contracts between the University and the Plaintiff
and the members of the Class and is unjust, the Plaintiff insists.
In short, the Plaintiff asserts, he and the members of the Class
have paid for tuition for a first-rate education and an on-campus,
in person educational experiences, with all the appurtenant
benefits offered by a first-rate university, and were provided a
materially deficient and insufficient alternative, which
constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by the Plaintiff
with the University. As to the Mandatory Fees, the Plaintiff and
the Class have paid fees for services and facilities which are
simply not provided. This failure also constitutes a breach of the
contracts entered into by Plaintiff with the University, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Surya Veeravalli was an undergraduate student during the
Winter 2020 and Spring 2020 semesters and is enrolled for classes
in the Fall 2020 with an expected graduation date of June 2021.
Northwestern is a private university in Evanston, Illinois, that
was founded in 1851.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
ncolella@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 750-1265
Email: kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Jeremy Francis, Esq
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
O&L LAW GROUP: Longden Files Suit Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O&L Law Group, P.L.
The case is styled as Elizabeth Longden, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. O&L Law Group, P.L.,
Velocity Investments LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-01978 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
O&L Law Group, P. L., specializes in the representation of
creditors in the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zeig, Esq.
Zeig Law Firm, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Tel: (754) 217-3084
Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit in Missouri court.
In June 2017, a putative class action case was re-filed against the
Company and other parties in Missouri state court after the
predecessor case was dismissed without prejudice by the federal
court.
The Company successfully removed the case to federal court and is
currently vigorously defending the case.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Omega Flex, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells flexible metal hoses and accessories in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as Tofle America,
Inc. and changed its name to Omega Flex, Inc. in 1996. Omega Flex,
Inc. was founded in 1975 and is based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
OMNICELL INC: Hearing Wednesday on Bid to Dismiss Heard Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the hearing on the company's motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, Corey Heard, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case
No. 2019-CH-06817, is set for September 2, 2020.
A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5,
2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No.
2019-CH-06817.
The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA"), and certain declaratory, injunctive, and other relief
based on causes of action directed to allegations of violation of
BIPA by the Company.
The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019. On July
31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate the
case with the Yana Mazya, et al. v. Northwestern Lake Forest
Hospital, et al., Case No. 2018-CH-07161 (Mazya Action).
The Court subsequently, on October 10, 2019, denied the motion,
without prejudice, as being moot in view of the Company's dismissal
from the Mazya Action.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31,
2019. The motion to dismiss is fully-briefed.
The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was previously set
for March 16, 2020, was continued to May 27, 2020, and then was
subsequently continued again to September 2, 2020.
The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.
OPKO HEALTH: $16.5 Million Settlement Reached in Florida Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that The Amitim Funds, the lead plaintiff in the
class action lawsuits in Florida, has filed a Stipulation of
Settlement.
On September 7, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York (the
"SEC Complaint") against a number of individuals and entities,
including the Company and its CEO and Chairman, Dr. Phillip Frost.
The SEC alleged, among other things, that the Company (i) aided and
abetted an illegal "pump and dump" scheme perpetrated by a number
of the Defendants, and (ii) failed to file required Schedules 13D
or 13G with the SEC.
On December 27, 2018, the Company announced that the Company and
Dr. Frost entered into settlement agreements with the SEC, which
upon approval of the court would resolve the SEC Complaint against
each of them.
The settlement was approved by the court in January 2019. Pursuant
to the settlement, and without admitting or denying any of the
allegations of the Complaint, the Company is enjoined from
violating Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and paid a $100,000
penalty.
Liability under Section 13(d) can be established without any
showing of wrongful intent or negligence.
Following the SEC's announcement of the SEC Complaint, the company
was named in several class action lawsuits, more than a dozen
derivative suits, and other litigation relating to the allegations
in the SEC Complaint among other matters.
On June 26, 2020, The Amitim Funds, the lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuits filed a Stipulation of Settlement in the Southern
District of Florida of behalf of itself and the remainder of the
class, which, if approved, will provide for the settlement of and
release of the class action claims against the Company and Dr.
Frost for $16.5 million.
The company reached agreement with its insurance carriers with
respect to claims made in the class action and derivative lawsuits
and we expect insurance coverage for a significant portion of the
settlement amounts. The settlement remains subject to certain terms
and conditions including court approval.
The Company is also in advanced negotiations to settle the
derivative suits.
OPKO Health, Inc., a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics
and pharmaceuticals business in the United States, Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, Mexico, and internationally. OPKO Health, Inc. was
incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida.
ORION GROUP: Dismissal in Houston Securities Suit Now Final
-----------------------------------------------------------
Orion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the order of dismissal in the class
action suit before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, has become final.
The Company and one former and two current officers were named
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed on April 11, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, seeking unstated compensatory damages under the
federal securities laws allegedly arising from materially false and
misleading statements during the period of March 13, 2018 to March
18, 2019.
The complaint asserted, among other things, that the current and
former officers caused the Company to overstate goodwill in certain
periods; overstate accounts receivable; that the company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting related to
goodwill impairment testing and accounts receivable; and that as a
result certain adjustments to goodwill and accounts receivable
materially impacted the company's financial statements, which in
turn caused the company's stock price to be artificially inflated
during the class period.
The District Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint on June 29, 2020 and the ruling became final on July 20,
2020 after no appeal was filed.
Orion Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty construction
company in the building, industrial, and infrastructure sectors in
the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, and the Caribbean
Basin. It operates in two segments, Marine and Concrete. The
company was formerly known as Orion Marine Group, Inc. and changed
its name to Orion Group Holdings, Inc. in May 2016. Orion Group
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.
PBF ENERGY: Kendig Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald on Aug. 24, 2020, entered judgment
granting final approval of the class action settlement and
dismissing claims in the case, Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et
al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09224
(C.D. Calif., Oct. 26, 2018).
The Court held a hearing on Aug. 17, 2020, to consider whether to
grant final approval of the settlement.
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that on September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and
Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF
Energy Limited and Torrance Refining along with ExxonMobil Oil
Corporation and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly
situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic
damages, statutory damages, civil penalties provided by statute,
disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
interest, attorney's fees and costs.
To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets.
On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court,
California Central District.
A mediation hearing between the parties was held on August 23,
2019. From the mediation hearing, the parties have reached a
tentative agreement in principle to settle. On March 17, 2019,
plaintiffs filed with the court a Notice of Motion and Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement for the Court's
approval of the proposed settlement pursuant to which Torrance
Refining would pay $2.9 million to resolve the matter and receive a
full release and discharge from any and all claims and make no
admission of any wrongdoing or liability.
On May 1, 2020 the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the proposed settlement.
PBF Energy said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PBF ENERGY: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 2021
-----------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that trial in the case, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., has been scheduled to commence on
July 27, 2021.
On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF LLC, and the company's
subsidiaries, PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company
LLC and the manager of Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were
named as defendants in a class action and representative action
complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela
Janette La Bella and others similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility
for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to
the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff. On March 18, 2019, the class certification
hearing was held and the judge took the matter under submission. On
April 1, 2019, the judge issued an order denying class
certification.
On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with the Ninth
Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class
Certification. The appeal is currently pending with the Ninth
Circuit.
On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs' motion. The company
filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019. The
Plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October 15,
2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.
Trial currently is scheduled to commence on July 27, 2021.
PBF Energy said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PG&E CORP: Appeal in Order of Dismissal in PSPS Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the plaintiff in the class action suit
involving Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) has filed a notice of
appeal of the Bankruptcy Court's decision dismissing the complaint
and has elected to have the appeal heard by the District Court,
rather than the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
On December 19, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California naming
PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company as
defendants.
The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all
California residents and business owners who had their power shut
off by the Utility during the October 9, October 23, October 26,
October 28, or November 20, 2019 power outages and any subsequent
voluntary outages occurring during the course of litigation.
The plaintiff alleges that the necessity for the October and
November 2019 power shutoff events was caused by the Utility's
negligence in failing to properly maintain its electrical lines and
surrounding vegetation.
The complaint seeks up to $2.5 billion in special and general
damages, punitive and exemplary damages and injunctive relief to
require the Utility to properly maintain and inspect its power
grid. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the allegations are
without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.
On January 21, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative strike the
class action allegations. The motion to dismiss and strike was
heard by the Bankruptcy Court on March 10, 2020, and on April 3,
2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the action
without leave to amend, finding that the action was preempted under
the California Public Utilities Code.
On March 30, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion granting
the Utility's motion to dismiss this class action.
The court held that plaintiff's class action claims are preempted
as a matter of law by section 1759 of the California Public
Utilities Code and thus plaintiffs could not pursue civil damages.
The court stated that "any claim for damages caused by Public
Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events approved by the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), even if based on pre-existing
events that may or may not have contributed to the necessity of the
PSPS events, would interfere with the CPUC's policy-making
decisions."
On April 6, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
Bankruptcy Court decision dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff has elected to have the appeal heard by the District
Court, rather than the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Plaintiff filed
a designation of the record and statement of the issues on April
20, 2020, and the Utility had until May 4, 2020, 14 days
thereafter, to file a designation of any additional items.
On June 8, 2020, plaintiff filed its opening brief. The Utility
filed its opposition brief on July 6, 2020. Plaintiff's reply brief
was due on August 5, 2020.
PG&E said, "The Utility is unable to determine the timing and
outcome of this proceeding."
PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.
PROSHARES TRUST II: Named as Defendant in Di Scala Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the trust together with
ProShare Capital Management LLC and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude
Oil have been named as defendants in a purported class action suit
entitled, Di Scala v. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al.
On July 28, 2020, ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor"),
ProShares Trust II (the "Trust"), and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg
Crude Oil ("UCO"), a series of the Trust, were named as defendants
in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Di
Scala v. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al.
The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing untrue statements of material fact and
omitting material facts in the prospectus for UCO, and allegedly
failing to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading.
Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are
also defendants in the action.
The defendants cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. The
defendants believe the lawsuit is baseless and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.
The Trust may incur expenses in defending against such lawsuit. The
Trust does not believe the lawsuit will adversely impact the
operation of the Trust, UCO, or any of its other series.
ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October
9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.
PROTARA THERAPEUTICS: Plumley Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Protara Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the purported class action suit entitled,
Plumley v. Proteon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-02143-UNA, has been dismissed.
On January 9, 2020, privately-held ArTara Subsidiary, Inc.
("Private ArTara") and Protara Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly ArTara
Therapeutics, Inc., formerly Proteon Therapeutics, Inc.) completed
the merger and reorganization (the "Merger"), in accordance with
the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization,
dated September 23, 2019, (the "Merger Agreement") by and among
Protara Therapeutics, Inc., Private ArTara and REM 1 Acquisition,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Protara Therapeutics, Inc.
("Merger Sub").
Thereupon, Merger Sub merged with and into Private ArTara, with
Private ArTara surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Protara
Therapeutics, Inc. The Merger was structured as a reverse merger
and Private ArTara was determined to be the accounting acquirer
based on the terms of the Merger and other factors, and the
post-merger company retained the name ArTara Therapeutics, Inc.
which, on May 11, 2020, was changed to Protara Therapeutics, Inc.
Between November 15 and December 23, 2019, four lawsuits were filed
in federal court against Proteon, ArTara, Merger Sub and the
individual members of the Proteon Board (captioned Patrick Plumley
v. Proteon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02143-UNA
(D. Del. filed 11/15/19)); Jeffrey Teow v. Proteon Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06745 (E.D.N.Y., filed 11/30/19);
Neil Lanteigne v. Proteon Therapeutics, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-12436 (D. Mass., filed 12/03/19); Stephen Wagner v. Proteon
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02343 (D. Del., filed
12/23/19).
The Plumley complaint was brought as a purported class action
lawsuit.
All four lawsuits alleged that the definitive proxy statement in
the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Proteon
on November 7, 2019 with the SEC in connection with the proposed
Merger (the "Proxy Statement") omitted material information with
respect to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement,
rendering it false and misleading in violation of Sections 14(a)
(and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The plaintiffs in each of the four lawsuits sought, among other
things, injunctive relief, rescission, declaratory relief and
unspecified monetary damages.
On December 31, 2019, Proteon filed an amendment to the Proxy
Statement on Form 8-K, which contained certain supplemental
disclosures intended to moot the plaintiffs' disclosure claims.
On January 9, 2020, Proteon held a special meeting of its
stockholders, at which the Company's stockholders approved the
Merger.
On January 27, 2020, plaintiff in the Lanteigne action voluntarily
dismissed his case. On February 3, 2020, plaintiff in the Plumley
action voluntarily dismissed his case. On February 7, 2020,
plaintiff in the Teow action voluntarily dismissed his case. On
February 10, 2020, plaintiff in the Wagner action dismissed his
case.
Thereafter, in connection with the supplemental disclosures that
were filed by the Company to moot plaintiffs' claims in these
actions, counsel for plaintiffs demanded an award of attorney’s
fees, which the parties recently resolved.
Protara Therapeutics, Inc. is a New York City based clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on identifying and advancing
transformative therapies for people with rare and specialty
diseases. The company is based in New York, New York.
RESTORBIO INC: Defends Adicet Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------
resTORbio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company is defending against several
lawsuits related to its merger with Adicet Bio, Inc.
On April 28, 2020, the Company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Adicet Bio, Inc. ("Adicet")
and Merger Sub pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of the conditions therein, The Merger Sub will merge with
and into Adicet (the "Merger"), with Adicet continuing as the
surviving company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of resTORbio.
The Merger Agreement was approved by the members of the Company's
board of directors (the "Board"), and the Board resolved to
recommend approval of the Merger Agreement to the Company's
shareholders. The closing of the Merger is subject to approval of
the Company shareholders and the satisfaction of customary closing
conditions.
In connection with the Merger, a putative class action lawsuit,
Plumley v. resTORbio Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-00858, was filed on June
26, 2020 by purported Company stockholder Patrick Plumley against
the Company, its directors, Adicet, and Merger Sub in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.
On July 2, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint, Azzara
v. resTORbio, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-05088, was filed as an
individual action by purported Company stockholder Salvatore Azzara
against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
On July 6, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint, Miller
v. resTORbio, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-05170, was filed as an
individual action by purported Company stockholder Megan Miller
against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
On July 9, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint, Feagan
v. resTORbio, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-03063, was filed as an
individual action by purported Company stockholder Douglas Feagan
against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.
On July 10, 2020, in connection with the Merger, a complaint, Lowen
v. resTORbio, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-11305, was filed as an
individual action by purported Company stockholder Robert Lowen
against the Company and its directors in the U.S. District Court
for the District Massachusetts.
On July 19, 2020, in connection with the merger, a complaint,
Mercier v. resTORbio, Inc, et al., 1:20-cv-05556, was filed as an
individual action by purported resTORbio stockholder Ronald Mercier
against resTORbio and its directors in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
The Plumley, Azzara, Miller, Feagan, Lowen and Mercier cases are
collectively referred to as the "Merger Actions."
The Merger Actions generally allege that the Company's proxy
statement/prospectus/information statement filed with the SEC on
June 23, 2020 misrepresents and/or omits certain purportedly
material information relating to financial projections, analysis
performed by JMP Securities LLC ("JMP"), past engagements of JMP,
and the process leading up to the execution of the Merger
Agreement.
The Merger Actions assert violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the
Company and its directors and violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Company's directors.
The Plumley Merger Action also asserts violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against Adicet and Merger Sub.
The Azzara Merger Action also asserts claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the Company's directors.
The Merger Actions seek, among other things: an injunction
enjoining consummation of the Merger, costs of the action,
including plaintiff's attorneys' fees and experts' fees,
declaratory relief, and any other relief the court may deem just
and proper.
It is possible that additional similar cases may also be filed in
connection with the Merger.
resTORbio, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware on July
5, 2016. The Company is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
developing innovative medicines that target the biology of aging to
prevent or treat aging-related diseases with the potential to
extend healthy lifespan. The Company’s principal operations are
located in Boston, Massachusetts.
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in Deka Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company has
executed a Stipulation of Settlement with the plaintiffs in the
case, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K, that fully resolves all
of the plaintiffs' claims for a cash payment of $47 million.
The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.
The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) on
behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities between January 23, 2014 and June
12, 2014.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and
oversight.
In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied.
In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes. In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka
Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class
certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15,
2017).
In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.
On July 28, 2020, the Company executed a Stipulation of Settlement
with the plaintiffs in the Deka Lawsuit that fully resolves all of
the plaintiffs' claims for a cash payment of $47 million.
The settlement is subject to approval by the Court and is not
expected to have any financial impact on the Company.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.
SPERIAN ENERGY: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Corsale Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an
Opinion affirm the District Court's Order dismiss the case
captioned JOHN CORSALE; DAVID TAYLOR, Individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Appellants v. SPERIAN ENERGY
CORPORATION, Case No. 19-3567 (3rd Cir.).
John Corsale and David Taylor brought this putative class action
alleging that Sperian Energy Corporation breached its electricity
supply contracts by setting retail prices that did not track prices
in the local wholesale market.
When the Plaintiffs first contracted with Sperian, they agreed to
Sperian's Initial Terms and Conditions, which provided for a
three-month teaser period during which Sperian charged a low, fixed
monthly rate. The Plaintiffs were free to cancel at any time after
these three months. Prior to the end of the teaser period, Sperian
sent the Plaintiffs the Updated Terms and Conditions governing
their post-teaser period services. The Plaintiffs did not cancel at
the end of the teaser period, so they were automatically enrolled
in the variable rate plan. Under the variable rate plan, the
Plaintiffs consistently paid higher prices than those charged by
their local utility companies.
Disgruntled, the Plaintiffs sued Sperian for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment. Sperian filed a motion to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and, rather than contest the
motion, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added an
alleged violation of a state consumer protection law but did not
meaningfully alter the breach of contract claim.
Sperian filed another motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and
the District Court granted it. The District Court held that the
Updated Terms constituted the operative contract, but, regardless,
neither the Initial Terms nor the Updated Terms included language
that imposed a duty on Sperian to set its prices based on local
wholesale market prices. The District Court dismissed the breach of
contract claim with prejudice, concluding that allowing the
Plaintiffs to amend the claim would be futile.
The Appellate Court agrees with the District Court that neither the
Initial Terms nor the Updated Terms imposed a duty on Sperian to
set its prices based on local wholesale prices. Both the Initial
Terms and the Updated Terms include permissive, rather than
mandatory, language regarding price setting. Both the Initial Terms
and the Updated Terms provide that Sperian's prices may be higher
or lower than the local utility company's prices in any given
month. The Appellate Court opines that this language does not
obligate Sperian to base its prices on prices in the local
wholesale market, and therefore, its failure to do so cannot
constitute a breach of contract.
Hence, the Appellate Court affirms the District Court's judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 18, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8tusuu5 from Leagle.com.
SPRINGS WINDOW: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Springs Window Fashions, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Springs Window Fashions, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06632 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2020).
Springs Window Fashions is a window covering company, selling
through all major residential and commercial channels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
SVENSK MANAGEMENT: Wallen Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debron Wallen and Sanjay Shakes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SVENSK MANAGEMENT, INC. & RICHARD
FERNBACH, Case No. 0:20-cv-61690-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 20, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Although the Defendants permitted and/or required the Plaintiffs to
work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Defendants have denied
them full compensation for their hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendants failed to
pay overtime to the Plaintiff for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week, in violation of the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as pool service
technicians. The Plaintiffs and other FLSA Class Members are
non-exempt employees under the FLSA.
Svensk is a Florida based corporation with its principal place of
business located in Broward County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua H. Sheskin, Esq.
LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC
200 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 900
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 880-9500
Fax: (954) 755-2993
Email: jhs@lubellrosen.com
TASC PERFORMANCE: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tasc Performance,
Inc. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Tasc Performance,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06682 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tasc Performance is a seller of eco-friendly sportswear for men and
women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TechnipFMC plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No. 4:17-cv-02368
(S.D. Tex.).
A purported shareholder class action filed in 2017 and amended in
January 2018 and captioned Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No.
4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Texas) is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain
current and former officers and employees of the Company.
The suit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's restatement of its first quarter 2017
financial results and a material weakness in our internal control
over financial reporting announced on July 24, 2017.
On January 18, 2019, the District Court dismissed claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
("Securities Act").
A remaining claim for alleged violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act in connection with the reporting of certain
financial results in the Company's Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed in 2016 is pending and seeks unspecified damages.
The Company is vigorously contesting the litigation and cannot
predict its duration or outcome.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and gas projects, technologies,
and systems and services businesses. It operates through three
segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Technologies. The
company was formerly known as Technip SA and changed its name to
TechnipFMC plc in January 2017. TechnipFMC plc was founded in 1958
and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.
TEREX CORP: Settlement Reached in Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the
consolidated class action suit entitled, Sheet Metal Workers Local
32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Terex Corporation, et al.
In 2010, the Company received these complaints seeking
certification of class action lawsuits:
-- A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws was filed in the United States District Court,
District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet
Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis
Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.
-- A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of
Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J.
Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang,
and Terex Corporation.
These lawsuits, which generally covered the time period from
February 2008 to February 2009, alleged violations of federal
securities laws and Delaware law claiming, among other things, that
certain of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements
contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages
to the Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported
class when they purchased the Company's securities and that there
were breaches of fiduciary duties.
With respect to these claims, the Company believes that it acted at
all times in compliance with all applicable laws and, without any
admission of wrongdoing or liability, has settled the stockholder
derivative and securities lawsuits.
The settlement amounts with respect to each lawsuit were covered by
the Company's insurance policies and did not have a material effect
on the Company's financial results.
As part of the stockholder derivative settlement, the Company made
certain amendments to its corporate governance procedures.
Terex Corporation manufactures and sells aerial work platforms,
cranes, and materials processing machinery worldwide. The company
operates through three segments: Aerial Work Platforms (AWP),
Cranes, and Material Processing (MP). Terex Corporation was founded
in 1925 and is based in Westport, Connecticut.
TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Treasuries Securities Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tradeweb Markets Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the Company's motions to dismiss the antitrust
class actions related to trading practices in United States
Treasury securities auctions are pending.
The Company has been named as a defendant, along with other
financial institutions, in antitrust class actions (consolidated
into two actions) relating to trading practices in United States
Treasury securities auctions.
The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the actions, believes it
has substantial defenses to the other plaintiff's claims and
intends to defend itself vigorously.
Additionally, the Company was dismissed from a class action
relating to an interest rate swaps matter in 2017, but that matter
continues against the remaining defendant financial institutions.
Tradeweb Markets Inc. is a leader in building and operating
electronic marketplaces for our global network of clients across
the financial ecosystem. The company's network is comprised of
clients across the institutional, wholesale and retail client
sectors, including many of the largest global asset managers, hedge
funds, insurance companies, central banks, banks and dealers,
proprietary trading firms and retail brokerage and financial
advisory firms, as well as regional dealers. The company is based
in New York, New York.
TRANS WORLD: $425,000 Reserved in Spack Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 2, 2020, that as of February 2, 2020 the company
has reserved $425,000 for the settlement in the case, Spack v.
Trans World Entertainment Corp.
There are two pending class actions. The first, Spack v. Trans
World Entertainment Corp. was originally filed in the District of
New Jersey, April 2017.
The Spack Action alleges that the Company misclassified Store
Managers ("SMs") as exempt nationwide. It also alleges that Trans
World improperly calculated overtime for Senior Assistant Managers
("SAMs") nationwide, and that both SMs and SAMs worked
"off-the-clock." It also alleges violations of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania State Law with respect to calculating overtime for
SAMs.
The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in
the Northern District of New York, May 2017 (the "Roper Action").
The Roper Action also asserts a nationwide misclassification claim
on behalf of SMs. Both actions were consolidated into the Northern
District of New York, with the Spack Action being the lead case.
The Company has reached a preliminary settlement with the
plaintiffs for both store manager class. The Company reserved
$425,000 for the settlement as of February 2, 2020.
Trans World Entertainment Corporation is a music retailer
thatoperates stores in the United States. The Company operates
mall-based stores and freestanding stores under the names Camelot
Music, Record Town, The Wall, F.Y.E., Coconuts Music and Movies,
Strawberries Music, Spec's, and Planet Music. Trans World also
operates an electronic commerce music and entertainment Web site.
The company is based in Albany, New York.
TRIANGLE HOME: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triangle Home
Fashions, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Triangle Home
Fashions, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06670 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Triangle Home Fashions is a factory direct manufacturer and
wholesaler producing Pillows, Bedding and Curtains (Window &
Shower).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
TWININGS NORTH: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06676
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site,
http://www.twiningsusa.com/,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
and, therefore, denial of its goods and services offered thereby,
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 Web site violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. 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.
The Defendant is a tea and beverage marketing company that owns and
operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Beef Buyers' Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that a trial court has yet to rule on the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Peterson v. JBS USA Food
Company Holdings, et al.
On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers
of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the
company, other beef packers, and Agri Stats, Inc., an information
services provider, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.
The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to
reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting
their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of
cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce
beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of
approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in which the claims
against Agri Stats were dismissed and subsequently filed a second
amended complaint on November 22, 2019.
The company had moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.
The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled as Peterson v.
JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al.
Additional complaints have been filed on behalf of a putative class
of direct purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act based on an alleged conspiracy to artificially fix,
raise, and stabilize the wholesale price for beef, as well as on
behalf of a putative class of commercial and institutional indirect
purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, various state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an
alleged conspiracy to artificially inflate the price for beef.
Tyson said, "On May 22, 2020, we received a civil investigative
demand ("CID") from DOJ's Antitrust Division. The CID requests
information related to the fed cattle and beef packing markets. We
have been cooperating with the DOJ's Antitrust Division with
respect to the CID."
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Wage-Fixing Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint related to the
alleged fixing of the rate of wages for non-supervisory production
and maintenance workers.
On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement,
acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory
production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants
in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
An additional complaint making similar allegations was also filed
by Emily Earnest.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a
wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information
regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of
wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in
violation of federal antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
The court consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.
Following the consolidation, two additional lawsuits have been
filed by individuals making similar allegations.
The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint containing
additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants and
named additional defendants.
Tyson said, "We have moved to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint."
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Underway in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation.
On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a
class action complaint against the company and certain of its
poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.
Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also
allege that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on grower
compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of
artificially depressing grower compensation below competitive
levels."
The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.
The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.
The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2017, and that motion was denied.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.
On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle
for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures
and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another
U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company
and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well
as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by
periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce
demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of
cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their
procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis,
importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand,
and closing and idling plants.
In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to
manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district
courts.
All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.
Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss this matter,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4,
2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Alleged Price-Fixing of Pork Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated
class action suit entitled, In re Pork Antitrust Litigation.
On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against
the company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well as
several other pork processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.
The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated
actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation.
Since the original filing, a putative class member is proceeding
with an individual direct action making similar claims, and others
may do so in the future. The individual complaint has been filed in
the District of Minnesota and is proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.
The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in
violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf
of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes
of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer
protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.
On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed without prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in
which the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants
conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the
price of pork and pork products in violation of state and federal
antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws,
and the plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
on behalf of the putative classes.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has
also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company, certain of its
subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging
activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws. This
lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and an amended
complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. On January 15, 2020, the
company moved to dismiss the amended complaints.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Illinois Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated
class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, in Illinois court.
On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own
behalf and on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of
poultry products, filed a class action complaint against the
company and certain of the company's poultry subsidiaries, as well
as several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern
District of Illinois.
Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated
actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.
Since the original filing, certain putative class members have
opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct
actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future.
All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the
Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.
The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the
litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January
2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws.
The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws. The plaintiffs also allege that defendants
"manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price
index, the Georgia Dock."
The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants concealed this
conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative
classes.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.
Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motions
likely to be filed by defendants are currently expected in late
calendar year 2020 and 2021. If necessary, trial will occur after
rulings on class certification and any summary judgment motions in
calendar year 2022.
On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified the company that the
U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") Antitrust Division issued a
grand jury subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all
parties in the civil case. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion
to intervene and sought a limited stay of discovery in the civil
action, which the court granted in part.
Subsequently, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the
DOJ seeking additional documents and information related to the
chicken industry.
On June 2, 2020 a grand jury for the District of Colorado returned
an indictment against four individual executives employed by two
other poultry processing companies charging a conspiracy to engage
in bid-rigging in violation of federal antitrust laws.
On June 10, 2020, the company announced that it had uncovered
information in connection with the grand jury subpoena that it had
previously self-reported to the DOJ and have been fully cooperating
with the DOJ as part of our application for leniency under the
DOJ's Corporate Leniency Program.
The partial stay previously granted by the court in the civil
action was lifted and discovery is continuing. The Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has also initiated a civil
lawsuit against the company, certain of its subsidiaries, and
several other poultry processing companies alleging activities in
violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws.
This lawsuit has been transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: Turkey Purchasers' Class Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suits initiated by turkey purchasers.
On December 19, 2019, Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. and
John Gross and Company, Inc., acting on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of all persons and entities who purchased turkey
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, filed a class
action against the company, turkey suppliers, and Agri Stats, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants entered
into an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive information
regarding turkey supply, production and pricing plans, all with the
intent to artificially inflate the price of turkey, in violation of
the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative
class.
On April 13, 2020, Sandee's Catering filed a similar complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of itself and a putative class of all commercial
and institutional indirect purchasers of turkey that purchased
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, alleging claims
based on the Sherman Act and various state law causes of action.
The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
UNITED STATES: IRS Sued Over CARES Economic Assistance Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2020, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and
Equal Justice Society (collectively, "Plaintiffs' co-counsel")
filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco,
California, challenging the Internal Revenue Service and Department
of Treasury (collectively "Treasury")'s decision to withhold CARES
Act economic assistance payments from incarcerated people
nationwide. The lead plaintiffs are Colin Scholl, currently
incarcerated in Salinas Valley State Prison in Monterey,
California, and Lisa Strawn, a woman paroled from San Quentin on
July 14, 2020. Plaintiffs and the proposed class seek a
determination that Defendants' conduct is illegal and an Order that
they make the required payments immediately.
Background: Congress passed the CARES Act to provide sorely needed
economic assistance during the economic crisis triggered by the
COVID-19 pandemic. Under the Act, Congress allocated aid of up to
$1,200 (plus $500 per qualifying child) to all American citizens
and legal permanent residents below a certain income level who were
not claimed as dependents. Incarcerated persons, and their families
on the outside, are among the most economically disadvantaged
people in the country. Indeed, according to one study, people who
are incarcerated had a median income of only $19,185 before their
incarceration, compared to $41,250 for non-incarcerated people.
Low-income families are disproportionately more likely to have a
relative behind bars.
The Treasury, however, has refused to issue stimulus payments
authorized by Congress to eligible incarcerated persons, thereby
further exacerbating the economic disadvantages they and their
families suffer.
"The Treasury Department's unlawful withholding of these allocated
funds undermines the health and safety of incarcerated people and
the families they support," said Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, an attorney representing the plaintiffs
in the case. "At a time when COVID-19 is tearing through prisons,
it is unforgivably heartless to steal COVID economic aid from those
most in need."
The populations that COVID-19 has decimated -- low-income children
of color, Black people, Latinx people and other people of color --
are also disproportionately impacted by over-incarceration," said
Mona Tawatao of the Equal Justice Society, an attorney for the
plaintiffs. "The Treasury Department's theft of CARES Act
supplements is both illegal and cruel as it subverts Congress' plan
to provide fast and direct economic assistance to families who need
help the most."
The lawsuit alleges that over 1.4 million incarcerated people have
been affected by Defendants' actions. Many rely on financial
assistance from their friends or families on the outside, people
who are already suffering in the current economic crisis. Hundreds
of thousands of others will be re-entering society soon, and need
help to get back on their feet at a time when the job market has
collapsed. Incarcerated people also need to spend their own money
-- or that of friends and family who are already hard-pressed to
make ends meet -- to stay in touch with loved ones through
expensive telephone and mail services, critical lifelines to
support their rehabilitation. Further, many incarcerated people
have outstanding child support and restitution obligations, and
stimulus payments can be used to support children in need as well
as crime victims.
The plaintiffs are Colin Scholl and Lisa Strawn. The Lieff Cabraser
legal team representing them and the proposed class are Kelly M.
Dermody, Yaman Salahi, and Jalle H. Dafa, joined by Eva Jefferson
Paterson, Mona Tawatao, Lisa Holder, and Christina Alvernaz of the
Equal Justice Society.
The defendants are the Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the
United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue Charles Rettig, the
U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service,
and the United States of America.
Read the complaint here. If you or your loved one is an
incarcerated person, please click here for a free legal
consultation about your rights.
More about Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP:
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a 100-plus attorney
AV-rated law firm founded in 1972 with offices in San Francisco,
New York, Nashville, and Munich. Described by The American Lawyer
as "one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms," Lieff Cabraser
has litigated some of the most important civil cases in the United
States and assisted clients in recovering over $124 billion in
verdicts and settlements. In March of 2020, Benchmark Litigation
named Lieff Cabraser its "California Plaintiff Firm of the Year."
Lieff Cabraser is committed to access to justice for all.
The Equal Justice Society is transforming the nation's
consciousness on race through law, social science, and the arts.
Led by President Eva Paterson, its legal strategy aims to broaden
conceptions of present-day discrimination to include unconscious
and structural bias by using social science, structural analysis,
and real-life experience. Currently, EJS targets its advocacy
efforts on school discipline, special education, and the
school-to-prison pipeline, race-conscious remedies, and inequities
in the criminal justice system. [GN]
URTHBOX INC: Martinez Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urthbox Inc. The case
is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Urthbox Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03811 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
UrthBox provides healthy new nongmo foods, beverages, snacks and
more delivered to customers' doors every month.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit Over Clairton Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class
action suit related to the December 24, 2018 fire at Clairton,
Pennsylvania.
On April 24, 2019, U. S. Steel was served with a class action
complaint that was filed in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas
related to the December 24, 2018 fire at Clairton Plant in
Clairton, Pennsylvania.
The complaint asserts common law nuisance and negligence claims and
seeks compensatory and punitive damages that allegedly were the
result of U. S. Steel's conduct that resulted in the fire and U. S.
Steel's operations subsequent to the fire.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery.
U. S. Steel is vigorously defending the matter.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
US STEEL: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the
shareholder class action suit related to the company's August 2016
secondary public offering (SCO).
On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
consolidating previously-filed actions.
Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U. S.
Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager
of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in
the August 2016 secondary public offering of the Company's common
stock (collectively, Defendants) violated federal securities laws
in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose
material information regarding the financial condition of the
Company.
The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.
The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated.
The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly
sustained. The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions
granting them in part and denying them in part.
On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the
Defendants related to the 2016 secondary offering.
As a result, the underwriters are no longer parties to the case.
The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending
the remaining claims. On December 31, 2019, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the proceeding as a class action. The
Company's appeal of that decision has been denied by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Discovery is proceeding.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated
purported class action suit entitled, Wolther v. Maheshwari et
al.
On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition.
On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action.
These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a
consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018. The
consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.
Veeco is defending this matter vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film
process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide.
Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Plainview, New York.
VIEWRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
ViewRay Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the Plymouth
County Retirement Association v. ViewRay, Inc., et al., is
pending.
On September 13, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of
federal securities laws was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against the Company, its chief executive
officer, chief scientific officer, and former chief financial
officer.
On December 19, 2019, the court appointed Plymouth County
Retirement Association as the lead plaintiff, and on February 28,
2020 the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
securities fraud claims against the Company, its chief executive
officer, chief operating officer, chief scientific officer, and
former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.
Now captioned Plymouth County Retirement Association v. ViewRay,
Inc., et al., the amended complaint alleges that the Company
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements that failed to disclose adverse facts
concerning the its business, operations, and financial results, and
seeks damages, interest, and other relief.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
28, 2020.
That motion is now fully briefed and under consideration by the
court.
ViewRay said, "We believe the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation."
ViewRay Inc. develops radiation therapy technology for the
treatment of cancer. The Company offers radiation therapy systems
that images and treats cancer patients simultaneously. ViewRay
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Oakwood
Village, Ohio.
VISA INC: Summary Judgment Bids Filed in Injunctive Relief Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the putative Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs in the
Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) have served a motion for
partial summary judgment.
On November 20, 2019, the district court denied the bank
defendants' motion to dismiss the claims brought against them by
the putative Injunctive Relief Class.
On December 13, 2019, the district court granted final approval of
the Amended Settlement Agreement relating to claims by the Damages
Class, which was subsequently appealed.
On May 29, 2020, a complaint was filed by Old Jericho Enterprise,
Inc. against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of a purported class of
gasoline retailers operating in 24 states and the District of
Columbia.
The complaint alleges violations of the antitrust laws of those
jurisdictions and seeks recovery for plaintiffs as indirect
purchasers.
Visa believes Plaintiffs' claims are released by the Amended
Settlement Agreement and are, nevertheless, covered by the U.S.
Retrospective Responsibility Plan.
On June 1, 2020, Visa, jointly with other defendants, served a
motion for summary judgment regarding the claims in the Injunctive
Relief Class complaint.
The putative Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs served a motion for
partial summary judgment.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VITA-MIX: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vita-Mix. The case is
styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Vita-Mix, Case No. 1:20-cv-06677 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 20, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vitamix, privately owned and operated by the Barnard family since
1921, manufactures blenders for consumers and for the restaurant
and hospitality industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
WEBELLENT LLC: Calcano Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Webellent LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos
Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Webellent LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06864 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 25, 2020).
Webellent LLC offer a wide range of IT services including web
design.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suit to Begin June 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that trial in the putative class action
suit pending before a Wisconsin federal district court is scheduled
to begin June 14, 2021.
Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed individual and class actions against the company, its former
affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others
alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages.
Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court
for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues.
The company agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to
this matter.
In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one
of our co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Farmland's
claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to the
company, entering final judgment in the company's favor. Farmland
appealed.
On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed the district
court’s grant of summary judgment, and on April 10, 2018, the
defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court,
which was denied on May 9, 2018.
The case was remanded to the Nevada federal district court and
subsequently has been remanded to its originally filed court, the
Kansas federal district court.
In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued
an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal
the order.
On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying
class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal
district court.
The company reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and
on April 22, 2019, the Nevada federal district court preliminarily
approved the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and
Missouri class members.
The final fairness hearing on the settlement occurred August 5,
2019, and a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice was entered
the same day.
Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been
remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal
district court. Trial is scheduled to begin June 14, 2021.
The Williams said, "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining
pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible
that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related
indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that
may be material to our results of operations. In connection with
this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance
associated with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to
future developments."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
WPX ENERGY: Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit Ongoing in Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a putative class action initiated by purchasers
of natural gas is ongoing in Wisconsin court.
Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the company and others,
seeking unspecified amounts of damages. The company is currently a
defendant in class action litigation and other litigation
originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and
Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers
of natural gas in those states.
These cases were transferred to the federal court in Nevada. In
2008, the court granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in
favor of the company and most of the other defendants based on
plaintiffs' lack of standing.
On January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in
the Company's favor.
On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the orders denying
class certification and remanded to the MDL Court. On September 7,
2018, those plaintiffs filed a motion seeking remand to the
originally filed district courts of Missouri, Kansas and Wisconsin.
In February 2019, settlement agreements with the Kansas and
Missouri class claimants were executed, and on August 5, 2019,
after the final fairness hearing, the court approved the settlement
and entered final judgment.
In the Wisconsin putative class action, the case was remanded to
its originally filed court of the Western District of Wisconsin for
trial.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tulsa, Oklahoma-based WPX Energy, Inc. operates in the exploration
and production segment of the oil and gas industry and its
operations are primarily located in Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico
Colorado. The Company specialize in development and production from
tight-sands and shale formations in the Delaware, Williston and San
Juan Basins.
XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Labul Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the court overseeing the case, Labul v. XPO
Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-02062, has yet to issue a
decision on defendants motion to dismiss.
On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned Labul v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-02062 (D. Conn.) was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
the company and some of its current and former executives, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on alleged
material misstatements and omissions in the company's public
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local
272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund
and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund (together, the “Pension
Funds”) filed a consolidated class action complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint
on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the court dismissed the
consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing
of an amended complaint.
The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint against the company and a
current executive.
Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated class
action complaint on March 3, 2020.
Briefing on defendants' motion was completed on June 18, 2020, and
the Court heard oral argument on June 30, 2020.
The Court has not yet issued a decision on defendants motion to
dismiss.
XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.
XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries
remain parties to litigation brought by independent contract
carriers.
Certain of the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are
defendants in several multi-plaintiff and putative class action
litigations brought by independent contract carriers in California
who contracted with these subsidiaries.
In these cases, the contract carriers, and in some instances the
contract carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified
as employees, rather than independent contractors.
The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally
include claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for
missed meal and rest periods, and reimbursement of the contract
carriers' business expenses.
XPO Logistics said, "We are unable at this time to estimate the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may
incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that
the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by
future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of
the claims."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.
XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself from the
so-called Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims.
Some of the company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are
defendants in several putative class action litigations brought by
independent contract carriers in multiple jurisdictions who
contracted with these subsidiaries.
In these cases, the contract carriers, and in certain instances the
contract carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified
as employees, rather than independent contractors.
The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally
include claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for
missed meal and rest periods, and reimbursement of the contract
carriers' business expenses.
XPO Logistics said, "We are unable at this time to estimate the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of
our accrued liability that we may incur as a result of these claims
given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by
the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims."
XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.
ZENDESK INC: Lead Plaintiff Balks at Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------
Local 353, I.B.E.W. Pension Fund, the lead plaintiff in the
consolidated case, Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al. Case No.
3:19-cv-06968 (N.D. Cal.), filed on August 28, 2020, its opposition
to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint.
Zendesk, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that on October 24, 2019 and November 7, 2019,
purported stockholders of the Company filed two putative class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, entitled Charles Reidinger v.
Zendesk, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06968-CRB and Ho v. Zendesk, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:19-cv-07361-WHA, respectively, against the Company
and certain of the Company's executive officers.
The complaints are nearly identical and allege violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased Zendesk, Inc. common stock between February 6, 2019 and
October 1, 2019, inclusive.
The claims are based upon allegations that the defendants
misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of
the company's prior public filings.
To this point, no discovery has occurred in these cases. The court
has appointed a lead plaintiff and consolidated the various
lawsuits into a single action (Case No. 3:19-cv-06968-CRB), and
lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on April 14, 2020
asserting the same alleged violations of securities laws as the
initial complaints.
On June 29, 2020, Zendesk and the executive officer defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Lead Plaintiff had until August 28, 2020 to file an opposition to
the motion to dismiss.
Zendesk, Inc. provides web-based help desk software with customer
support platform. The Company offers applications that allow
clients to manage incoming support requests from end customers from
any Internet connected computer. Zendesk serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Says Evans Suit in Post-Pleading Phase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the civil class action
suit entitled, Evans v. CB&T is in the post-pleading phase and
trial will not occur for a substantial period of time.
A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the
company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California in May 2017.
This case was filed on behalf of a class of up to 50 investors in
International Manufacturing Group (IMG) and seeks to hold the
company liable for losses of class members arising from their
investments in IMG, alleging that the company conspired with and
knowingly assisted IMG and its principal in furtherance of an
alleged Ponzi scheme.
In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the Bank. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was heard in
early April 2019 with the Court of Appeals reversing the trial
court's dismissal.
Zions said, "This case is in the post-pleading phase and trial will
not occur for a substantial period of time."
Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
ZOVIO INC: Bid to Dismiss Stein Securities Class Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zovio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in "Stein Complaint" had
been granted.
On March 8, 2019, a securities class action complaint (the "Stein
Complaint") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California by Shiva Stein naming the Company, Andrew
Clark, Kevin Royal, and Joseph D'Amico as defendants (the
"Defendants").
The Stein Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and
materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects, specifically that the Company had applied an improper
revenue recognition methodology to students enrolled in the Full
Tuition Grant (FTG) program.
The Stein Complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
March 8, 2016 to March 7, 2019. The Stein Complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On October 1, 2019, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint.
On November 27, 2019, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which was granted by the Court on June 15, 2020.
Zovio said, "The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may
arise. The Company has not accrued any liability associated with
this action."
Zovio Inc. operates as an education technology services company in
the United States. The company was formerly known as Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. and changed its name to Zovio Inc in April 2019.
Zovio Inc was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
[*] China Allows Small Investors to File Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Shidong, writing for South China Morning Post, reports that
China will allow the nation's army of small investors for the first
time in history to file class action lawsuits in cases such as
fraud and price manipulation, as policymakers stiffen penalties in
the wake of scandals involving local businesses on stock exchanges
at home and abroad.
The landmark decision by the country's Supreme Court paves the way
for the world's largest group of individual investors to seek
compensation for investment losses by suing a defendant or
defendants en masse. Class action lawsuits, a staple of US and some
European countries' civil law, are seen as easier and less costly
than pursuing compensation individually against defendants.
The Supreme Court has cleared the way by issuing regulations on
July 31 that formally permits the enforcement of class actions. It
is a major step forward for a country with about 160 million
individual stock market investors, who often find themselves
without adequate legal recourse when they are ripped off.
"It's surely great news for individual investors like us," said
Jacky Jia, a software engineer in Shanghai, who invests in shares.
"It will save time and costs, and allow more individuals to take up
the law as a weapon to protect their own interests."
The move highlights the increasing importance of China's
30-year-old stock market, as top policymakers tap the capital
market to support home-grown technologies amid boiling tensions
with the US. The historic move follows recent cases involving fake
gold at Kingold Jewelry, and fabricated sales at Luckin Coffee that
snared mom-and-pop investors and global fund managers, and fanned
arguments between US and Chinese regulators.
Class action is "of great significance in protecting investors'
rights, improving the basic system of the capital market, deepening
the reforms of the capital market and maintaining a healthy
market," the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) said in
a statement on its website. The CSRC will target cases that are big
and have a pernicious social impact, it added.
While there are no long-term historical statistics on losses tied
to Chinese stock market malfeasance, the reform promises to bring
local legal procedures closer to developed markets such as in the
US.
There, plaintiffs filed 182 new securities class action lawsuits in
federal and state courts in the first half of 2020, 18 per cent
lower from the preceding six months, according to the Stanford Law
School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. The number of
filings involving the financial sector rose by 50 per cent, it said
in collaboration with Cornerstone Research.
Almost a third of core federal filings were against non-US stock
issuers, the second-highest percentage on record and on pace for
the highest if annualised.
China's ramped-up efforts made good its promise to crack down on
market excesses and coincides with its latest promise to wield the
big stick at Luckin Coffee, the start-up touted as China's
Starbucks, which overstated sales by US$300 million last year
shortly after its Nasdaq listing in May.
The Xiamen-based coffee chain is being delisted and is part of the
reason why US politicians are seeking legislation to stamp out the
opaque accounting practices of some Chinese companies trading on
American exchanges.
Mainland market regulators are also looking at Kingold Jewelry in
the alleged scam involving fake gold pledged for 20 billion yuan
(US$2.8 billion) of loans, a case recently highlighted by the China
Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission.
Curbing rampant market misconduct will help retain investors'
confidence in China's US$9.4 trillion stock market, which has
undergone a slew of reforms including an expanded trial of the
registration-based system for initial public offerings.
The Shanghai Composite Index is the world's only major benchmark
that has not slipped into bear-market territory this year amid the
global outbreak of Covid-19. A meeting of the Communist Party's
Politburo reiterated that the clampdown on wrongdoings linked to
securities was crucial to ensure a stable market.
China had 168 million stock traders by the end of June, 95 per cent
of them individual investors.
In the recent crackdown, the CSRC has handed over to the police 10
cases of accounting fraud, in which listed companies inflated their
earnings to be profitable, or failed to make important disclosures.
In some of the cases, major shareholders seized corporate funds for
their own uses, the regulatory said on its website.
That adds up to 24 such cases that have been passed on to the
police since 2019, involving companies including Kangmei
Pharmaceutical and Chengdu Techcent Environment, it said.
The CSRC slapped a record 3.6 billion yuan fine on two individual
investors in June for insider trading. The two illegally earned
906.4 million yuan from trading shares of Shanghai-listed Joincare
Pharmaceutical Group Industry. [GN]
[*] Insurance Industry Calls for Reform of Class Action Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that the insurance industry has made
its case before a parliamentary inquiry into the class action
system, pushing for reforms to arrest the sharp escalation in
directors' and officers' (D&O) premiums.
Increased oversight of litigation funders via a mandatory licensing
regime is one of the changes that should be considered, the
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Financial Services and
Corporations was told.
Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) Senior Policy Manager Tom Lunn
says the industry supports the role that class actions play in
helping Australians access justice, but also warns the prohibitive
cost of acquiring D&O in the current climate is not sustainable.
Premiums rose at least 75% last year and an average of 88% in
2018.
"Fewer insurers are now willing to provide this cover," Mr Lunn
said. "Those insurers who are willing to provide cover are
increasing their premiums. They are also reducing coverage limits.
"This is making D&O insurance very expensive, and for many smaller
listed companies the premiums may be close to unaffordable."
Industry representatives rejected a suggestion during the inquiry
that it was seeking to water down the continuous disclosure regime
for listed companies, which has been blamed for a surge in
securities class actions.
ICA says in its written submission to the inquiry that a breach of
these obligations can arise from an honest mistake, as opposed to
any deliberate intention to withhold information, and defending
against such lawsuits can be very hard.
"The problem is that the law around continuous disclosure is very
uncertain, so there is not much in the way of legal precedent to
guide both defendants and plaintiffs as to how a case might play
out," ICA Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee Chairman Ewen
McKay told the inquiry.
"There are a number of reasons why you would settle a matter before
it reaches final judgment in court. Very few cases, regardless
which side they are on, have a 100% chance of success."
Marsh Australia CEO Scott Leney told the inquiry many of the
broker's clients are under significant stress because D&O covers
are increasingly unaffordable.
Some have had to agree to excesses of up to $500,000 in order to
secure D&O cover, and in one extreme case a client took on a
deductible of more than $200 million.
"Securities class actions supported by litigation funding are
causing an unprecedented increase in premiums and retentions that
we fear is unsustainable," he said. [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 ***